Why is the theory of evolution questionable?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As a result of the publication of the book of Charles Darwin "the origin of the species" in 1859 the theory of the evolution has become the foundation for a great part of the humanistic thought during the last 150 years. Therefore, inspired by that idea, many have come to the conclusion that practically everything evolves: science, arts, history, morality, etc., etc., etc. But, is this really so?
Since the theory of the evolution is indeed that, a theory, there is no reason to think that it is unquestionable, because a theory is a speculation or hypothesis subject to discussion as long as it is not a really proven scientific fact, and still if apparently it could be proven, always there would exist the possibility of questioning it because many of the supposed evidences that would support it have turned out to be completely erroneous or nonexistent. By the way, David Raup, curator of the Museum Field de Chicago, one of the greatest ones, asserts "the majority of the people assume that the fossils provide a very important part with the argumentation done in favor of the darwinian interpretations, well, more than a 100 years after Dawin?s theory the knowledge of the fossil record has increased enormously? Ironically, we even have less examples of evolutionary transition that those that we had at the time of Darwin". So I think it?s time to recognize that the theory of evolution has never been really scientific but a kind of pseudoscience.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,487 • Replies: 60

No top replies

@sword,

sword;120821 wrote:

Since the theory of the evolution is indeed that, a theory, there is no reason to think that it is unquestionable, because a theory is a speculation or hypothesis subject to discussion as long as it is not a really proven scientific fact, and still if apparently it could be proven, always there would exist the possibility of questioning it because many of the supposed evidences that would support it have turned out to be completely erroneous or nonexistent.

Despite the fact that the above sentence is a run on sentence, it is completely erroneous.

You want to know what else is a theory, gravity.

But you really want to know what completely baffles me. That this day in age with all this information so readily available that people still make this common mistake. Do you even bother to do any research? The reason evolution is called a theory is because science doesn't like the presume absolutes.

There are dozens of branches of science that stem from the theory of evolution that can point directly at it being a fact and provide evidence. We would not have genetics if it were not for the theory of evolution. That is just ONE field of science that came about and so much about biology has been learned because of it. To attempt to undermine the theory of evolution should be considered a gross a intellectual crime in my opinion.

What you have written is tripe, but that is only my own opinion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

sword;120821 wrote:

As a result of the publication of the book of Charles Darwin "the origin of the species" in 1859 the theory of the evolution has become the foundation for a great part of the humanistic thought during the last 150 years. Therefore, inspired by that idea, many have come to the conclusion that practically everything evolves: science, arts, history, morality, etc., etc., etc. But, is this really so?

The scientific theory of Darwin could for all intents and purposes lead many people to believe that that very theory could be applied to pretty much everything. One thing to point out though is that categorical and evolutionary theory is not a novel concept to Darwin. There were quite a few immediate predecessors to Darwin (like Lamarck) and a few who came much earlier, such as Aristotle. For example, Aristotle pointed out that, "?things come to be do so either by nature or by skill or spontaneously; and they all come to be something, and come from something, and are brought to be by something?" (Metaphysics,Zeta,1032-a12) So evolutionary theory has been around a lot longer than 150 years? perhaps it is ingrained into human rationality to begin with by the extent to which we trace our intellectual heritage.

But I feel as though the point you make here ends here. What you say next is more in regards to a theory as a theory in itself rather than the connection between a theory and its necessary connection to other things. I think you have a very interesting topic to discuss, so any elaboration would be very helpful.

sword;120821 wrote:

Since the theory of the evolution is indeed that, a theory, there is no reason to think that it is unquestionable, because a theory is a speculation or hypothesis subject to discussion as long as it is not a really proven scientific fact, and still if apparently it could be proven, always there would exist the possibility of questioning it because many of the supposed evidences that would support it have turned out to be completely erroneous or nonexistent.

I completely agree with you on this. More often than not, a theory which we took to be solid and immovable ends up being disproven a few years down the line and our entire conception of a given thing has to be reconsidered? or not.

sword;120821 wrote:

By the way, David Raup, curator of the Museum Field de Chicago, one of the greatest ones, asserts "the majority of the people assume that the fossils provide a very important part with the argumentation done in favor of the darwinian interpretations, well, more than a 100 years after Dawin?s theory the knowledge of the fossil record has increased enormously? Ironically, we even have less examples of evolutionary transition that those that we had at the time of Darwin". So I think it?s time to recognize that the theory of evolution has never been really scientific but a kind of pseudoscience.

If anything, the more fossils they discover, the more it actually proves Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is based on the "modification with descent" (which interestingly enough, Darwin does not even use the term "evolution" until much later in his extensive series). Darwin's "evolution" came in series of mutations which benefited the possessor causing them to live compared to the others? hence the term "natural selection." Genetic anomalies give rise to new characteristics which in turn (some of the times) provide a certain animal with certain benefits which are so beneficial that that animal is preferred over others. So the more fossils that are discovered that have subtle differences but nothing exactly identical (or no parallels at all), it could show how modification with decent propagates throughout the years. I think that many people still confuse Darwinism with Lamarckism, which is the theory that evolution occurs when an animal has a given need and "clicks" on a gene to pass on the solution to that need. Though this itself is a theory, it is not as viable or probable as Darwin's theory.

That evolution is not really scientific but more of a pseudoscience, I have to disagree. Science in itself is a methodology designed to hypothesize, test, retest, etc. a given theory to the point where it becomes gradually accepted as fact (although it never should be considered the final fact). Darwinism is just that? even the obviously flawed fundamentals of Lamarckism. I would link pseudoscience more to the prediction of weather than to evolution? an inductive process rather than a deductive process.

Krumple;120825 wrote:

You want to know what else is a theory, gravity ? But you really want to know what completely baffles me. That this day in age with all this information so readily available that people still make this common mistake. Do you even bother to do any research? The reason evolution is called a theory is because science doesn't like the presume absolutes.

But gravity has been judged to be a relative theory in itself (Einstein/relativity). I don't think some of what sword said was really that controversial but indeed prudent in the respect of science (theory as just a theory). But interestingly enough, I think you would agree with him as far as that as well because you say "science does not like to presume absolutes," although I am reading between the lines here. As far as Swords' comments on evolution and pseudoscience, etc., that may be a point to discuss at greater length.

Krumple;120825 wrote:

There are dozens of branches of science that stem from the theory of evolution that can point directly at it being a fact and provide evidence. We would not have genetics if it were not for the theory of evolution. That is just ONE field of science that came about and so much about biology has been learned because of it. To attempt to undermine the theory of evolution should be considered a gross a intellectual crime in my opinion.

I would think we would still have genetics regardless of whether or not we had the theory of evolution? Darwin, Lamarck, or anyone else for that matter (although I would give a nod to Mendel).Arguably, evolutionary theory primarily put genetics in context because genetics is itself a molecular mechanism of heredity... but genetics does not depend on it.

Krumple;120825 wrote:

What you have written is tripe, but that is only my own opinion.

You don't think this is a little harsh considering that sword's OP could be read as though it is merely a critique of theoretical considerations rather than an outright challenge to evolution?

1 Reply

@sword,

sword;120821 wrote:

Since the theory of the evolution is indeed that, a theory, there is no reason to think that it is unquestionable, because a theory is a speculation or hypothesis subject to discussion as long as it is not a really proven scientific fact

You might look up the formal definition of "theory".

sword;120821 wrote:

I think it?s time to recognize that the theory of evolution has never been really scientific but a kind of pseudoscience.

Evolutionary biology doesn't depend on Darwin's explanation. It's corroborated by literally thousands if not tens of thousands of studies looking at all sorts of evidence, including but not limited to fossils. If you're out to throw out evolutionary biology, you need to explain away not just fossils but also molecular genetics, molecular embryology, and radioisotope decay, to name a few.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 02:48 PM ----------

VideCorSpoon;120848 wrote:

sword's OP could be read as though it is merely a critique of theoretical considerations rather than an outright challenge to evolution?

I don't share this reading. He's challenging evolution via its epistemology, but without actually doing the work to ascertain how conclusions about evolution are reached. He's making two common assumptions that are both, frankly, ludicrous: 1) evolutionary biology somehow fails to stand independently of Darwin, and 2) the word "theory" somehow diminishes the strength of evidence just because the word's colloquial meaning is weaker than its scientific meaning.

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;120848 wrote:

You don't think this is a little harsh considering that sword's OP could be read as though it is merely a critique of theoretical considerations rather than an outright challenge to evolution?

You are right, it is a little harsh of me to say it. However; (you know this was coming) it reeks of statements that I have seen many times made by creationists and bashers of evolution science. It is a response to a red flag and that is why I felt the need to make sure it was just me stating an opinion, which it still is. To be honest, I don't see the critique of theory, but instead it is another protest on evolution. If it was more about theory then I think the subject would have covered more theory, at least I would hope it would.

The last line:

sword;120821 wrote:

So I think it?s time to recognize that the theory of evolution has never been really scientific but a kind of pseudoscience.

Is most telling that it is not questioning theory but instead attempting to discredit the theory of evolution specifically.

0 Replies

@sword,

sword;120821 wrote:

By the way, David Raup, curator of the Museum Field de Chicago, one of the greatest ones, asserts "the majority of the people assume that the fossils provide a very important part with the argumentation done in favor of the darwinian interpretations, well, more than a 100 years after Dawin?s theory the knowledge of the fossil record has increased enormously? Ironically, we even have less examples of evolutionary transition that those that we had at the time of Darwin".

What - so the Victorians had more transitional fossils than we do - and that somehow disproves Darwin?

I don't get it. Is it just a lie or am I missing something?

Any scientific theory is questionable, of course, but the theory of evolution is no more or less questionable than any other, and it's weathered 150 years of very tough questioning (probably disproportionately so) and still seems the best explanation for the diversity of life that exists.

0 Replies

@sword,

sword;120821 wrote:

As a result of the publication of the book of Charles Darwin "the origin of the species" in 1859 the theory of the evolution has become the foundation for a great part of the humanistic thought during the last 150 years. Therefore, inspired by that idea, many have come to the conclusion that practically everything evolves: science, arts, history, morality, etc., etc., etc. But, is this really so?
Since the theory of the evolution is indeed that, a theory, there is no reason to think that it is unquestionable, because a theory is a speculation or hypothesis subject to discussion as long as it is not a really proven scientific fact,.

It does so happen that evolution is a concept and a process that can be applied to many fields including cosmology (the evolution of the universe). Gravity is a theory too it just happens to be directly demonstrable not a historical process like evolution.

Prior to Darwin's time the dominant notions about the earth and life on earth included:
-A young earth; a few thousands of years old.
-Special creation and fixity of species- each species was created in its current form via a special act of the creator (god).
-Man was made uniquely in god's image- the crowning glory of all creation in fact the purpose of all creation..
-The notion that the earth was the center of the universe and the heavens were perfect orbits and planet eternal celestial spheres had just recently in human worldview terms been overthrown.

The Theory of Evolution basically overthrows these notions and thus the furor in the religious community over "the origin of the species" and the "descent of man". In Darwin's scheme:
-The earth was millions, we now know billions (4.5 roughly) years old.
-Species are not fixed and in fact species change over time, some species become extinct and new species appear. The history of life on the planet is likewise ancient (3 billion or more years).
-Man is one species among many and developed from early primate ancestors, just like all other forms of life. In fact humanoids have only been around for a couple of million years; a very brief period in the history of the planet.
-There is variation from generation to generation among individual members of a species and those variants most likely to procreate and or survive in given environment (procreation is actually more important) come to dominant in that environment over time. The exact mechanism of that variation and of its transmission from generation to generation was not know.

Darwin himself knew little to nothing about genetics and the source of this variation and its transmission was unclear to him. (in fact some significant details are still in dispute) but the general outline of evolution is not. Evolution is a historical process and thus cannot be demonstrated directly by experiment (unlike gravity). The fossil record is not surprisingly; spotty (but actually more complete than many like to admit). But evolution is the crowing unifying theory in all of biology and is supported by virtually all available evidence (DNA, anatomical, fossils, carbon dating, etc.). Attacking the basic outlines of evolution is just silly.

One can easily see the drastic changes in worldview that Darwin's theory precipitated and particularly in religious worldview (about the origin of species and the place of man) which they entailed. I do not see which of the main elements of Darwin's theory of evolution can be contested on the basis of evidence or reason. Religion needs to just accept it and modify religious views and teachings so they do not conflict. Try saying "theistic evolution" or "evolution is the mechanism of gods creation".?.

Which part of Darwin's basic theory do you object too?

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;120916 wrote:

It does so happen that evolution is a concept and a process that can be applied to many fields including cosmology (the evolution of the universe). Gravity is a theory too it just happens to be directly demonstrable not a historical process like evolution.

I would be as bold to say that evolution is also demonstrable. In fact I have several examples but I want to use one that people ignore that is blatantly right in front of their face, or in some cases right at their feet.

Dog breeding. All dogs were descendants of wolves, but through the process of domesticating wolves we have dabbled in the breeding and selection process to further domesticate wolves, I mean dogs.

Now you might object, and say, "Breeding is not evolution!" but actually it is. The only difference is, that instead of nature deciding on what it finds to be cute, we have decided what is worth keeping and re-breeding. So many of the wolves that we have domesticated probably couldn't even survive in the real world minus human assistance but we love them regardless. Evolution of species on the other hand would slap us on that same hand and point out that we have made and error in judgment since the adaptations of selection are not sufficient for species survival and success. Oh but the point of a chihuahua is living up to it's survival quite well, good thing some of us find them cute. How's that for adaptation?

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;120921 wrote:

I would be as bold to say that evolution is also demonstrable. In fact I have several examples but I want to use one that people ignore that is blatantly right in front of their face, or in some cases right at their feet.
Dog breeding. All dogs were descendants of wolves, but through the process of domesticating wolves we have dabbled in the breeding and selection process to further domesticate wolves, I mean dogs.

Yes animal husbandry is evolution in fast forward with man selecting instead of nature, and genetic engineering is perhaps another example. Not wanting to get into another discussion about what is "natural" or "unnatural".

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;120921 wrote:

I would be as bold to say that evolution is also demonstrable. In fact I have several examples but I want to use one that people ignore that is blatantly right in front of their face, or in some cases right at their feet.

Oh there are plenty of ongoing natural ones other than breeding that are easily demonstrable as well. The problem is that people will look at real-time genetic evolution of bacteria, of small organisms, and even of humans (in a time span of a few thousand years) and poo-poo it because real time we can't show that humans are eventually going to evolve into flying dragons or limbless brains or something.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

We should realize that there are real calculations that can be proven and there are theoretical calculations that are not really proven. The methods to date the age of the Earth or life such as the ones based on carbon, potassium or argon, according to which the fossils would have million years of antiquity, although they are mathematical calculations they are still theoretical because only a being that may have lived lived x million years could confirm if really those calculations are correct. Geologic studies have even demonstrated that the deeper layers of the Earth are not the oldest ones necessarily as the flagmen of the evolution believed, the theory just doesn?t fit reality.. By the way a few years ago samples of lava flows of 1949 and deposits of an avalanche that happened in 1954 were taken. The samples were taken to the Geochron laboratories in Boston for a complete dating and the results were more than surprising: To the majority of the samples they gave an antiquity that fluctuated between 270.000 years up to 3, 500.000 years. And they were 20th century samples ! that way we can notice that, as time goes by, the theory of the evolution is becoming more hypothetical and less scientific.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;120925 wrote:

Oh there are plenty of ongoing natural ones other than breeding that are easily demonstrable ..... and poo-poo it because real time we can't show that humans are eventually going to evolve into flying dragons or limbless brains or something.

No! Now I have nothing to look forward to! I'm pretty sure you are wrong about us not evolving into dragons though. I have a running bet with the flying pink elephant that I can become a dragon before he can. So far I am in the lead despite him already having the ability to fly.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 07:18 PM ----------

sword;120933 wrote:

We should realize that there are real calculations that can be proven and there are theoretical calculations that are not really proven. The methods to date the age of the Earth or life such as the ones based on carbon, potassium or argon, according to which the fossils would have million years of antiquity, although they are mathematical calculations they are still theoretical because only a being that may have lived lived x million years could confirm if really those calculations are correct. Geologic studies have even demonstrated that the deeper layers of the Earth are not the oldest ones necessarily as the flagmen of the evolution believed, the theory just doesn?t fit reality.. By the way a few years ago samples of lava flows of 1949 and deposits of an avalanche that happened in 1954 were taken. The samples were taken to the Geochron laboratories in Boston for a complete dating and the results were more than surprising: To the majority of the samples they gave an antiquity that fluctuated between 270.000 years up to 3, 500.000 years. And they were 20th century samples ! that way we can notice that, as time goes by, the theory of the evolution is becoming more hypothetical and less scientific.

I am skeptical of this so called dating because dating rocks doesn't use radio carbon dating method. Why? Because most rocks do not contain carbon to date and even if they did, it doesn't mean that the rocks themselves are as young as the carbon in them. We only use carbon dating to date biological matter, such as bones or plants. It doesn't work on rocks. However; you can date the bones in the rocks and get an fairly accurate date. It is chemistry and if you are trying refute chemistry then you have a lot of work to do other than try to discredit carbon dating.

0 Replies

@sword,

sword;120933 wrote:

We should realize that there are real calculations that can be proven

Nothing can be proved in the absolute. If you want absolute proof, then you have no business taking on evolution as opposed to anything else in science.

sword;120933 wrote:

The methods to date the age of the Earth or life such as the ones based on carbon, potassium or argon, according to which the fossils would have million years of antiquity

Right, well, it's known that radioisotopes decay in half lives. Thus, you know how long ago a fossil stopped incorporating new carbon or new potassium. If you are prepared to offer a disproof of radioactivity and quantum physics, then I'll accept that the isotopic dating techniques used in evolutionary biology may be wrong.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 10:24 PM ----------

Krumple;120934 wrote:

Because most rocks do not contain carbon to date and even if they did, it doesn't mean that the rocks themselves are as young as the carbon in them. We only use carbon dating to date biological matter, such as bones or plants. It doesn't work on rocks.

Well, it can work on rocks -- limestone and marble, for instance, are CaCO3. But the problem with C14 dating is that its half life is generally too short to resolve most geological questions. K-Ar dating is more useful for very distant dating.

1 Reply

@sword,

There is another way to confirm dates.

One specific example is Hawaii, okay well not specifically Hawaii but the sea floor that spreads out towards the northwest of Hawaii.

When the sea floor was mapped, they found a very interesting feature that goes from the east coast of japan down towards Hawaii. It is a series of peaks which turned out to be dormant volcanoes.

With the knowledge of the moment of the pacific plate the geologists have determined that these peaks were once over the top of the spot where present day Hawaii sits. So what they theorize is happening is that there is an upwelling of magma at the point where Hawaii sits and as the plate moves northwest a new upsurge is created.

There is data that supports that Hawaii is slowing moving northwest and they theorize that eventually it will move off of the location where the upsurge is and cause the volcanoes there to become dormant. What will eventually happen is a new up serge will take it's place and after several thousand years a new island will form where Hawaii was.

If you take the distance, and the current rate of movement, you can make a calculation of just how long this process has been happening. You can even try to tweak the input data to account for quicker up serge and you still fall under millions of years for each peak.

You could completely ignore all this data they have been collecting on this and write it off to say the earths crust formation was much quicker in the past and what seems to have taken millions of years only took a few thousand. Nice theory but there is a problem with it.

One thing they found while doing this research is that the iron deposits in the rocks have an unusual characteristic. It seems that every few hundred thousand years or so the earths magnetic poles must flip causing the iron in the cooling rock to line up and point towards the pole as the rock cools and hardens they are locked in place. A series of back and forth flips have been recorded one after the next in an almost synchronized timed flip. This is not something that could happen in just a few thousand years unless the plates were moving around at much faster speeds.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;120947 wrote:

This is not something that could happen in just a few thousand years unless the plates were moving around at much faster speeds.

Unless one of two things happened:

1) The laws of physics, and nature in general, are not constant and we are deluded into thinking they are

or

2) God created it that way and it's a test of our faith

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;120948 wrote:

Unless one of two things happened:

1) The laws of physics, and nature in general, are not constant and we are deluded into thinking they are

or

2) God created it that way and it's a test of our faith

Yeah, both are plausible however; if two were true then god is a prick. Why place such an important task only to dance behind the curtain? To me it would be far more of a test to reveal oneself without any doubt what so ever, and if someone rejects then you flat out know they did it in your face. Instead of leaving it up to the possibility that someone just wouldn't accept that invisible friends really exist.

As far as changing the laws of physics, there is no evidence of it, and our current understanding we so far don't really have any problem that would constitute the need for physics to be different than how we understand them. If they were different at one point in time, then by all means we would have some kind of evidence to support it.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;120952 wrote:

As far as changing the laws of physics, there is no evidence of it

Exactly -- in science we have to assume that the basic properties of nature are constant -- certainly within the lifespan of the Solar System.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;120937 wrote:

Well, it can work on rocks -- limestone and marble, for instance, are CaCO3. But the problem with C14 dating is that its half life is generally too short to resolve most geological questions. K-Ar dating is more useful for very distant dating.

Well actually its uranium lead for most geological dating but no matter, no mind, I dont think logic, fact or science is going to convince in this case.

I am just wondering what his alternative theory is and what the motivation (probably religious) is, Sword?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;120921 wrote:

The only difference is, that instead of nature deciding on what it finds to be cute, we have decided what is worth keeping and re-breeding.

What is this thing "Nature" that you are talking about which decides about all kinds of things ? Are you using the bed-time story things as explanations ? rather disgusting to present this as explanatory work. It merely replaces "God - which is what I say it is - everything past and future - said so".

2 Replies

@memester,

memester;120974 wrote:

What is this thing "Nature" that you are talking about which decides about all kinds of things ? Are you using the bed-time story things as explanations ? rather disgusting to present this as explanatory work. It merely replaces "God - which is what I say it is - everything past and future - said so".

Explain how are you using the term "nature" and how are you using the term "god" and the relationship between them?

1 Reply

Why is the theory of evolution questionable?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know