Question by austany: Evolution is a theory with flaws!!! Agree?
First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.
Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “micro-evolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.
Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many fundamental questions about the development of life that evolution has not answered. There are many, many questions about biological life that it cannot answer. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.
AGREE?
Best answer:
Answer by Jared
No. Evolution has no flaws. If a flaw existed, it would be recognized as a flaw and promptly peer-reviewed and corrected.
You have a really good understanding of creationist propaganda, but not so much of the actual theory. I’d suggest that you actually research your own arguments, because a lot of them prove themselves wrong.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
considering that it’s not some idea from an ancient book, but a plausible explanation that is still being worked out, the people arguing about the two are completely missing the point. to argue about the two is pointless, considering that science is constantly changing as new things are discovered, while the bible is an already finished ideology. unfortunately, some HAVE used evolution as an anti-religious mascot…
First off Jared you are a brainless buffoon! You are the most disgraceful atheistic person i have ever heard of!
Anyway, YES Evolution has countless flaws!!! It is the most idiotic theory ever invented. Their are tons and tons of hoaxes and made up stories in evolutional thinking so many things are out of the question it’s insane! Evolution is so wide spread now that christians are being persecuted in their own country that was founded on the Bible! Literally. Things are changing, for the worst.
For sure there are probably flaws, being we don’t know everything. But the general structure of evolution is quite secure. Small change over a period of time pushed by geological situations. And I have never heard anybody say that evolution disproves god. Science has nothing to do with god. And do you know how long 35 billion years are? It took a millions of years, millions! before life expanded Beyond single cells.
Yes but the reason we choose evolution is that the scientists are the first ones to admit there are questions still to be answered.
Only you Fundies clainm that all the answers are in one small book.
Big world, lots of critters in it.
Doesn’t really seem possible that you could explain it all in one go.
“There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur” – False. There is no exclusionary principle that says only one method can be in force at the same time.
“Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record.” – False. Examples of many variations exist in fossil records where only sedimentary soils have existed. Where igneous soils are involved, some destruction of fossils probably occurred that obscured some of the slow transitional stages.
“However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed.” – FAIL. The studies cannot have spanned more than about 150 years whereas evolution had 150 MILLION years – times 30! Don’t expect macro results in micro time. This is an unreasonable demand that betrays ignorance of the basic concepts.
“Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion” – FALSE – we who are atheists do not claim that evolution disproves religion. We claim that when religion demands strict adherence to the words of the Bible, THEN is when it fails. Evolution stands on its own. The Bible, because it is a single set of books with little or no contemporary corroboration, is like a single, faint voice in the wilderness, banging a gong loudly but signifying nothing. In other words, we don’t need evolution to disagree with what religion has to offer (to us, emptiness). Religion fails on its own.
But thanks for trying.
Evolution is so unrealistic and deceiving. When I went to school and was taught evolution I’d put my head down on the desk and go to sleep. My grandmother taught me that God created the heavens and the earth and that made much more sense than the big bang nonsense.
Are there flaws in evolution?…Are there flaws in counterfeit $20 bills? Absolutely! Do I study evolution to find the flaws? No, I study the bible, the truth and can easily see the error.
When I worked as a cashier many years ago I was able to detect counterfeit money very easily because I became keenly aware of the feel of the real bills. Study the real and you will recognize the false.
Here’s a great website that the evolutionists detest because it reveals truth and gives meaning to life. http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Nope.
Evolution is driven by change in the environment and limited by genome rate of change.
If the environment changes rapidly then you get punctuated evolution. If the environment changes slowly you get gradual evolution.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution other than time/generations. Saying micro can not lead to macro is like saying you can walk 10 yards, but you can not walk 10 miles. Sorry? What is stopping this? Please provide the genetic mechanism that will stop genome change at a certain point. Or shut up.
Misapplication of a theory – or to be more accurate – your alleged misapplication of a theory does not invalidate the correct application of a theory.
This is like saying Relativity is wrong because when I apply it to baking a pie it is unable to make predictions. So what? It still applies to fast moving objects, etc.
Pretty epic fail there.
Every theory has “flaws”.
That’s why they are theories.
No atheist or scientist have EVER tried to claim that evolution disproves “God”. NONE. It’s Christian creationists who make that claim.
Atheists and scientistts don’t even think about God when they’re looking at or studying evolution.
It’s the paranoid “it’s all about us” religious fundamentalists who are creating a problem where there needs not be one. (As usual.)
If you want proper, scientific answers to everyting you posted here, stop reading creationists websites. You will get nothing but misinformation from them.
Good posting of creationist propaganda.
Evolution is a scientific theory without any significant flaws. Creation is a theory with more flaws than evidence.
Sadly, you fail to understand Evolutionary science and are simply parroting the bile that creationist keep spewing up.
A scientific theory is closer to fact than any other type of theory. In science, theory is based on physical evidence and a result or solution is posited based on the available information and empirical evidence. The theory holds true until empirical evidence comes along to disprove or change the theory to match the new evidence.
In science, they observe evidence, cause and effect and such, then base the theory on the evidence.
In Creationism, they posit a theory and seek out “evidence” to prove the theory.
I agree!
Many evolutionists equivocate between natural selection and evolution. In reality, natural selection involves the ELIMINATION of traits not suited to an environment. Evolution requires the ACQUISITION of novel traits in an organism. Consider bears for a moment. In the north, polar bears have white fur (actually it’s clear). This gives them an advantage because the white fur blends in with the snow and allows them to sneak up on prey. The trait of dark fur has been eliminated among polar bears. Further south, grizzly bears have dark fur. White fur makes lousy camouflage in the woods so the trait of white fur is eliminated in that population. We see traits being eliminated all the time.
Evolution, on the other hand, requires that animals acquire new traits yet we never observe animals acquiring novel traits. This is such an important point that it cannot be stressed enough.
To make this point, I have a favorite illustration that I use. Think about dogs. I like to use dogs because so many people are familiar with them. They’re also notorious breeders and we can easily observe many generations of dogs in a single human lifetime. Now dogs come in a lot of colors – red, black, brown, white, blonde, and different shades in between. But have you noticed that dogs don’t come in new colors? I like the color blue. There are blue birds, fish, reptiles, insects, and plants. Why aren’t there any blue-haired dogs? There aren’t any blue-haired mammals for that matter. If I wanted a blue-haired dog, how long would I have to wait for one to evolve? I’d have to wait a long time indeed because even though dogs come in a lot of colors, they don’t come in NEW colors. So I don’t expect to ever see a blue, green, or purple-haired dog. Do you?
Of course, critics scoff at this example. Am I saying that evolution can’t be true because there aren’t blue-haired dogs? Not exactly. Let’s think about this: animals aren’t becoming new colors. Yet, if evolution were true, dogs would have had to become new colors sometime in the past. I mean all the colors we see in dogs now had to be new sometime, right? So even though we know animals don’t come in new colors, evolution demands that they do. Then which is it? Do animals come in new colors or is evolution false?
To explain the rise of new traits, evolutionists invariably point to one thing – mutations. Mutations are mistakes or errors in the genes. They’re usually neutral or harmful (we normally call them “birth defects”) but occasionally an animal is born with a beneficial mutation. An animal is born with a birth defect, nature selects for or against the defect, the successful animals leave more offspring which inherit the mutation, and the “new” feature makes its way into the entire population. It is these beneficial mutations that evolutionists believe fuels novel traits in organisms.
In reality, though, mutations cannot explain novel traits. Go back to my example of polar bears. Polar bears have webbed-toes due to a mutation where the bear’s toes fail to divide during embryonic development. Now, this actually helps the bear swim better so it proved to be beneficial. And since, among bears, the trait is unique to polar bears, it could be called novel. However, it is still the result of a LOSS of function in the gene – that is, the toes FAIL to divide. It doesn’t, for example, explain how bears got toes in the first place. Deformed toes on a creature that already has toes isn’t really all that novel, is it?
So where are the observed examples of new traits arising in animals? How can I believe in a theory that defies simple observation? The inability of evolution to explain the rise of novel traits is the failure of the theory.
So do you even understand what you copy and pasted? You simply pasted an answer from http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html. Rephrase the question in your own words so we know you actually understand what you are asking and then I will expend the time required to refute your allegations.
Absolutely NOT! I can not agree with your logically flawed argument from ignorance. Simply because there are different theories of evolution do not make them mutually exclusive. It might simply means one of them might be incorrect. Evolution really has nothing to do with breeding dogs. Breeding dogs is done under human stipulations and not a slow process dealing with numerous climatic problems over eons and a multiplicity of other stimuli. I suspect you have a religious bias which leads you into this diatribe regarding evolution. Many religious fanatics believe the world is 10k years old, well science rebukes this quite easily. So therefore dinosaurs and humans did not simultaneously exist. These facts I believe started the RELIGION VS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAR. At least the Evolutionists are working to a scientific standard, whereas the religionists are working with the fairytale standards, where anything goes.
PLEASE out yourself and your true purposes and stop hiding behind words and flawed thought processes. How can I have an “axe to grind against god” if he or she does not exist? Don’t get me wrong I’m not an Atheist (and believe they are logically perverted – you can’t prove a negative). However being Agnostic, this allows me to question both sides of this argument…
why is there a contradiction between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? organisms could exist in relative stability until the environment changes rapidly, which could cause rapid change, like an increase in radiation due to a close supernova or solar flare.
you appear to be looking for ways to disprove evolution cuz you feel religion is attacked by science. science doesn’t care about god. believe as you wish, but creationists seem to be happy to accept their belief in a god driven universe without proof and with an acceptance of apparent contradictions that they won’t credit evolution. if you come into the discussion with an agenda, you aren’t intellectually honest.
Well this should be fun:
> “Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.”
Response: No, punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution only has two speeds: stop and relatively fast (from a geologic point of view). “Gradualism” is the idea that evolution proceeds at many different speeds. (Which is why “Gradualists” don’t call themselves that, so I use the term in quotes.) Both sides agree regarding the speed of mutation rates, the fact that natural selection causes species to evolve and adapt to their environments, and the common ancestry of all life on earth.
Punk Eek proponents such as Gould have argued that evolution only has two speeds because the network of genes in an individual is so intertwined that new alleles (created by mutation) rarely have a chance to establish themselves. They thus think genetic contraints are very important, and that speciation and rapid evolution tend to happen only during those times when such genetic constraints are lifted during environmental upheavals (due to the fragmentation of populations into small groups). “Gradualists” such as Dawkins respond that evolution causes populations to adapt to their environments, so as a population moves into a new environment we should expect it to evolve quickly at first and then slower as it reaches constraints imposed by the availability and capabilities of resources. After that the population should evolve to track changes in the environment – often very slow, occasionally other speeds. Thus “gradualists” tend to think the most important factors for the speed of evolutionary change are the stability of the environment and the physical constraints of what can be done with bone or muscle or shell.
Both groups also acknowledge that the apparently discontinuous changes often seen in the fossil record for a particular area are often likely to reflect what happens when a subpopulation leaves the area, evolves somewhere else, and then comes back and replaces the original population. We also see situations where the conditions necessary for fossilization, such as siltation from a river, are removed for a period of time, resulting in markedly different fossils after the necessary conditions finally become reestablished.
See chapter 9 of The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins, for a more in-depth discussion.
> “The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment.”
Response: What exactly do you mean by “shift their biology”? Are you referring to “shifts” of individuals (such as getting a tan), or to “shifts” of entire populations (such as a change in the average skin color that babies are born with)? Both those things can be called adaptation, but the former never constitutes evolution, and the latter always does. Got that? Any change in the genetic makeup of a population over time is evolution.
Now if you want to claim that the genetic makeup of populations can only change within certain limits, then say so and back it up. Don’t resort to false definitions. (And while we’re at it, don’t post other people’s work as if it’s your own).
In order to show that genetic change has limits, you’ll have to establish what those limits are and a mechanism for how they’re enforced. I’ve yet to see any creationist do either of these things. You are essentially arguing that evolution can take small steps, but that those steps can’t add up to large changes over time. So let’s hear it! Why can’t they! And how do you account for the huge amounts of evidence from numerous different disciplines that they can and did.
> “Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else.”
The reason all dogs are the same species is that there is gene flow between all the breeds. Chihuahuas and great Danes can’t interbreed directly, but they can exchange genes via all the intermediate sized breeds. Remove all those intermediates and suddenly chihuahuas and great Danes would become two genetically separate species. They’d even likely be considered separate genera, like foxes and wolves. We might continue to call them both dogs, but then again we might not. Common names don’t really matter because they don’t provide a good indication of degree of relatedness. For example, brine shrimp and the shrimp you eat are in completely different orders. But keep in mind that the huge differences we see now between chihuahuas and great Danes were established in only about 500 years. Multiply that by 100, or by 1,000, or by 10,000, and you can start to get an idea of what evolution can do in 50,000 or a half million or 5 million years.
> “Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.”
We have in fact witnessed species becoming other species (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ) so what do you mean by “something else”? Specifically what genetic limits are you talking about? What defines the line beyond which you think evolution can’t cross? If you show me such a line I will show you evidence of lineages that have crossed it. There is in fact a huge consilience of experimental evidence from numerous different scientific disciplines demonstrating that all life is related. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ How long are you going to close your eyes and pretend it’s not there?
> “Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits.”
Actually, there I’d agree with you. Evolution does not show that the lifeforms we see before us developed without God. It merely shows that they could have.
> “First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” ”
Not really – there is no reason why both cannot occur.
The current best-accpeted model is for longer periods of gradualistic change (slow) interspersed with short periods of rapid change.
> “This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive”
Sorry, but they are not, in fact.
> “The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed.”
Sorry – but again, this is not the case.
The studies have demonstrated that, over a period of only a few years, changes can only “go so far” – but even then, the changes can be dramatic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wall_Lizard#Rapid_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> “Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.”
Can I ask what mechanism you propose to preven many small-scale changes from eventually addying-up to large-scale changes?
After all – if I step an inch a day, I will eventually walk a hundred miles.
> “There are still many, many fundamental questions about the development of life that evolution has not answered. There are many, many questions about biological life that it cannot answer.”
Like what, exactly?
> “And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits.”
Now this, I agree with.
No scientist would ever claim that evolution, or any other field of science, could disprove God in any way.
It might remove the neccessity for invoking God, and therefore make the philosophical case for His non-existence more parsimonious and compelling – but that is not the same thing as disproving Him.
Read This
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1041/1041_01.asp
And Consider this
Creation in the 21st Century “Caught in the Act”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOdByKKvV6I (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CQb7tS-EjM (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfN3UfoDZkQ (Part 3)
Creation In The 21st Century — From Where did these Layers …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZyoXQJ5Al0
Creation in the 21st Century – Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o226umqLdsU
Creation in the 21st Century – Overwhelming Evidence 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-4O7AOYLqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXLFFduC56Y&feature=related
Evolution: Against All Odds!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS9o9cbQDLI
Creation In The 21st Century – Palace of Dinosaurs Part 2 (1 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeK239U2fdE