Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

@Alan McDougall,

Reconstructo;106977 wrote:

It's the theory of evolution. Of course it could be wrong.

The possibility of it being wrong is not because we call it a theory. A theory in scientific terms is the strongest case that can be made for any body of evidence. In fact a theory is tantamount to a paradigm.

The reason why ANY scientific theory, finding, law, or whatever might be wrong is simply that the epistemology of science is based on the cogency of evidence, and we are not omniscient.

But this is the easy question. The hard question is how or why might evolution be wrong? And to answer this, you need to challenge the data, not the logic.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;106964 wrote:

Our DNA wouldn't be crappy and error-prone and full of garbage, including a whole library of dead DNA from our distant ancestry. For instance. People who invoke a creator to explain the majesty of our genome need to somehow rationalize these things.

Actually I was responding to this, by saying, basically, well if it's so bad, do you reckon we could do a better job.

There is a line of argument that goes something along the lines of: if living beings were created by a deity, and a deity is supposed to be perfect, then why are there so many 'design anamolies' in the human (and other species)?

This is an addendum to the general argument 'why is life full of suffering if the deity is supposed to be all-powerful and all-good?'

I think such arguments are based on a misconception of what the 'the goodness of God' is supposed to consist of. But it is difficult to explain why this is a misconception. I think that would be a whole new thread in the Philosophy of Religion forum.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

I used the word theory to hint at the attitude of science, which I have always conceived as an open-ended attitude.

I responded to the threads title. And my brief response implied that such an answer was indeed quite easy. I'll leave the hard part for the rest of you in this case.

I "believe" in evolution. It's good enough for Jesus, and it's good enough for me.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106986 wrote:

Actually I was responding to this, by saying, basically, well if it's so bad, do you reckon we could do a better job.

I know, and my answer remains the same!

jeeprs;106986 wrote:

There is a line of argument that goes something along the lines of: if living beings were created by a deity, and a deity is supposed to be perfect, then why are there so many 'design anamolies' in the human (and other species)?

Right, and the rationalization in response is something like "who are we to question the design of a deity?" It's an answer that allows god-fearing theists to be just as befuddled by our complexity as a scientist.

Reconstructo;106987 wrote:

I "believe" in evolution. It's good enough for Jesus, and it's good enough for me.

:flowers:

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Aedes,

You know I'm joking, yes? It was hard to tell what you meant by quoting me...

Smile

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;107001 wrote:

Aedes,

You know I'm joking, yes? It was hard to tell what you meant by quoting me...

Didn't matter what you meant. Made me laugh. :flowers:

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Dave Allen;106892 wrote:

"Monkey" is a colloquial catch-all for primates.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 02:09 PM ----------

EDIT

Actually I think I'm incorrect here on some technical grounds.

So I take it back.

Aedes;106906 wrote:

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 03:07 PM ----------

Perhaps, but we should probably avoid colloquialisms, I mean there ARE taxonomic monkey groups -- Old World monkeys and New World monkeys are different taxa from one another, and properly do not include prosimians or apes.

Thanks guys.........

rest is ignored, as they are mere arguments.......

We can now move if Allan Mcdougal, the OPoster has anything to counter, who incidently may have had a good laugh....... isn't it so, Mac!

0 Replies

@Inquisition,

Inquisition;106577 wrote:

Evolution is not random. Mutations can be but evolution itself is anything but random, it is highly structured.

Evolution does not pretend to give the answers to the beginning of life and ultimate truth, it merely purports to show how life works (rules it follow, how it advances). As such many people can still believe in god and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive.

So please don't say evolution is random, you are doing a great disservice to everyone on all sides of the issue by further clouding the truth.

Evolution is science that can be observed. It can tell you facts about how life is, not how it began. That is a different subject.

Name just one positive mutation!!

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;108681 wrote:

Name just one positive mutation!!

the eye...

it wont let me just put "the eye..." so I had to add this as a complaint.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;108683 wrote:

the eye...

it wont let me just put "the eye..." so I had to add this as a complaint.

People never sleep in Seattle?

The eye designed an eyebrow to prevent moisture entering and fogging up its vision, had a meeting with the nose and started a joint venture to drill a tunnel between the two, so that access tears could drain off into the nose. Smile

Then just to top it off it made a nose that could hold up eye glasses :bigsmile:

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;108686 wrote:

People never sleep in Seattle?

yeah, when they are tired.

Time is not always the same in every spot of the world at the same moment.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;108686 wrote:

The eye designed an eyebrow to prevent moisture entering and fogging up its vision,

Hair is used often for particle control. There are many areas that have hair as first line defense against foreign objects entering the body. So what? You find it far fetched that the eyebrow is there, I say it's not, because the eyebrow is not even that effective. Pretty much where ever there is an orifice there is hair.

Alan McDougall;108686 wrote:

had a meeting with the nose and started a joint venture to drill a tunnel between the two, so that access tears could drain off into the nose.

Yeah it is the way in which you view the connection between the two that you can't seem to grasp how it could arise without having some intelligence behind it. The fact that you use the word drill implies some intention or motivation behind a requirement and a doer to solve the problem. That is not the case.

The body is full of redundancies such as the lymphatic system. If the body did not have these systems it would either lose much of the liquids or they would become unusable.

I bet these glands were there prior to the eye developing. Why would I make such a rash and quick argument? Because the body is full of lymph nodes that seem to be in places that really don't need them. Why are there nodes in the thighs? Seems like an odd place for them to develop yet they are there.

The tonsils are also a lymph node that sometimes get infected and swell causing throat irritation or blockage. Seems rather strange that if there were some thought behind their placement that there surely could have been a better place to put them rather than potentially harm the being when they become infected.

Alan McDougall;108686 wrote:

Then just to top it off it made a nose that could hold up eye glasses

Why is it primates have one of the worst eye issues out of the animal kingdom? How come bald eagles don't need glasses? You seriously think that glasses were intentionally thought as a necessary need from a creationist point of view? No they are a result of a failing of the human eye that is poorly constructed.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;108881 wrote:

Why is it primates have one of the worst eye issues out of the animal kingdom? How come bald eagles don't need glasses? You seriously think that glasses were intentionally thought as a necessary need from a creationist point of view? No they are a result of a failing of the human eye that is poorly constructed.

We've some of the best eyes in the animal kingdom in terms of colour, definition and seeing things that aren't on the move.

And glasses, of course, are built to suit our noses rather than the other way round.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;108903 wrote:

We've some of the best eyes in the animal kingdom in terms of colour, definition and seeing things that aren't on the move.

Okay um can I see what you've been reading please?

Dave Allen;108903 wrote:

And glasses, of course, are built to suit our noses rather than the other way round.

Then what the *explicit word* are contacts for then? Your nose?

EDIT*

I think I understand you now Allen. But feel free to correct me.

You are taking the approach that we were given a nose by a creator so that glasses would have something to sit on? So glasses are designed specifically for comfort on the nose.

Well my question is, why even design the eyes to need glasses then? It would be like having a hole in a boat, but instead of patching the hole, you invent a pump to pump out the water and call that the solution.

If the creator makes the boat with a hole in it, why didn't it get created without the hole in the first place? That seems far more logical than saying the intention was so that a pump would later be invented.

Honestly? Seriously?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;108925 wrote:

Okay um can I see what you've been reading please?

Well, I haven't quite finished with my copy - but the best popular science book on the subject is The Eye: A Natural History by Simon Ings.

Check out the info and reviews here, it's highly recommended:

The Eye: A Natural History: Amazon.co.uk: Simon Ings: Books

Snatch it up as part of a bundle deal with Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin and you've two really top pop science books at a budget price!

Quote:

Then what the *explicit word* are contacts for then? Your nose?

No, your eyes, but they are not glasses.

Quote:

You are taking the approach that we were given a nose by a creator so that glasses would have something to sit on? So glasses are designed specifically for comfort on the nose.

No. I don't think there was a creator. Evolution has provided humans with fine eyes on the whole, but many eyes suffer from problems (some significant, some trivial) and glasses and contact lenses are some of the inventions humans have developed to cure or compensate for such problems.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;108927 wrote:

Well, I haven't quite finished with my copy - but the best popular science book on the subject is The Eye: A Natural History by Simon Ings.

Check out the info and reviews here, it's highly recommended:

The Eye: A Natural History: Amazon.co.uk: Simon Ings: Books

Snatch it up as part of a bundle deal with Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin and you've two really top pop science books at a budget price!

No, your eyes, but they are not glasses.

Does that book also cover the human blind spot?

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

The book covers the blind spot that all animals with corneal eyes possess, yes.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave when you say you see no creator, do you not see many strange coincidences that could give rise to the notion. I find the problem from both sides , one jumps to the conclusion of an almighty creator and the other like yours , its all a great big coincidence. Its like believing in accidence's , there is no such thing as an accident.

I cant believe that the formula for life, that has always existed, has not the appearance of invention. The complexities of our universe are without doubt an amazing and incomprehensible view of what might be. The problem with supposing is, we invent to hide our inadequate reasoning. The problem with not inventing, is that it ignores the possibilities.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;105385 wrote:

Well, this is your first foundational error in understanding the theory of evolution through natural selection.

c) if an animal population is forced into an unfriendly environment it's immediate descendants are no more likely to be adapted to it than the first generation.

Evidence ? thanks

1 Reply

@memester,

Has anybody heard of the "mimivirus"?

Basicly it is a very complex virus, with over a thousand genes, and able to create it's own protein.

Some scientists (not all) beleive it is responsible for the eukaryotic nucleus. Theory goes along the lines that virus used to be self sufficient (meaning they would have to be considered alive) and that one fused with a a eukaryote cell to give it the complex nucleus it has today, and sometime after lost it's self sufficiency.

As such it threatens to re-draw the entire tree of life. Any thoughts?

0 Replies

Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know