Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Aractus]

My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.

Really? What about the Wolf --> Domestic Dog? What about the European Wildcat --> Domestic Cat? Aurochs --> Cattle?

Those are all scientifically distinct species, and there are plenty of others.

[Whateverist]

As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself. There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.

I only included and bolded the bit I disagree with. But first of all kudos to you for trying to weave as much knowledge of the world around us into your worldview. For that is what the scientific method has done better than any other approach is to distill what can be known about the world around us through observation.

From my perspective you are saddled with an enormous handicap by virtue of your need to filter what can be observed directly through the religious filter you accept a priori. But I see you struggling mightily to bring the world that can be observed directly into alignment with those a priori beliefs. And you've managed to reconcile a great deal more than many we get through here. So kudos to you.

If you'd like me to elaborate on why I bolded the part I did I'm happy to do so.

---

Then it must also stand to reason that since there's never been any scientific proof that god exists, he must not exist.

Also, hasn't this topic cropped up a hundred times already?

1. Ok I wasn't arguing that God existed but this wasn't meant to be a religious debate and 2. If you are bored with this topic then why didn't you just ignore it?

I think DarkHorse raises a good point. If Darwin's theory must be discarded unless there is scientific proof for it, wouldn't the same criteria have to be applied to its alternative?

Apparently you don't really have a beef with evolution. It is the origins of life itself which concerns you. Evolution is mute when it comes to where life came from, only with what it does once arisen. So you may think God blinked the earliest life forms into existence or believe that life here was seeded by aliens, and still accept evolution as the best theory to account for what we observe at the microscopic level as well as in the fossil record.

Of course evolution is also compatible with the belief that the transition from inorganic to organic had entirely natural causes. But nothing about evolution is dependent on accepting abiogenesis. Perhaps it bothers you that accepting natural cause for the present forms of life somehow suggests that there must also have been a natural cause for the initial forms of life? Obviously I share that bias. But there is no reason that you must in order to redeem the explanatory value of the theory of evolution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This is simply the crocoduck nonsense dressed in borrowed robes, nothing more than the idiotic claim that 'dogs don't give birth to cats, so evolution is false'.

If evolution were false, there wouldn't be a science of biology as such. You'd simply have a loose collection of facts without a unifying theme - it'd be like trying to do classical physics without the concept of mass.

Boru

[Chas]

Whales???

You just quoted one of the animal lineages with the smallest superficial change, that's not an argument, that's just bias.

Ok so give me a better example that is comparable to the lineage of humans. I'm seriously not on here just to argue. I sincerely want to acquire new knowledge so please enlighten me.

I'm guessing that you haven't ever read a book on evolution by an evolutionary biologist. There are many.

[The Grand Nudger]

My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.

Really? What about the Wolf --> Domestic Dog? What about the European Wildcat --> Domestic Cat? Aurochs --> Cattle?

Those are all scientifically distinct species, and there are plenty of others.

You could add a few dozen plants as well. Many more seem to have undergone a speciation within the range of our experience but what Rob seems to want really doesn't apply to anything before we started looking (and knew where to look). Speciation -has- been observed, with regularity, both in the lab and in the field. On this point there is no debate, no disagreement, no contradictory evidence, no argument, no nothing. There is the observation of evolution, the observation of speciation - and then there are explanations as to the mechanism. On this second part, there is a great deal of debate, disagreement, contradictory evidence, and compelling argument. None of which would cast any shadow over natural selection - which was Darwins contribution to what has become a much larger body of knowledge than he ever could have imagined (a contribution which he rightly ascertained had already been accepted by his audience - which was already plainly in evidence but had not been articulated or had not had it;s implications fully explored, whether they had realized it or not) - hence his tendency to explain evolution (or warm up an audience..if you will..lol) in terms of artificial selection such as the breeding of domestic plants and animals. A very hefty portion of which is to what identified effect contributes what percentage or share or value to the sum total of the process. Natural selection has had the limelight for awhile, but perhaps we -have- overestimated (or underestimated) it's importance. That it is (at least) part of the "apparatus" is, at this point, beyond any reasonable doubt, imo.

@Rob specifically. Try researching Raphinobrassica. Quite possibly it's own genus, not just it's own species ( a hybrid between two genera, no less). You'll find links from there to , literally, hundreds of other well evidenced examples of a great many different means of acheiveing speciation (which, obviously, includes natural selection) that have indeed been observed by botanists alone - and that's just one small corner. Evolution plainly states that fish will evolve into fish, primates into primates, etc. This is not a criticism of the theory - it is an affirmation of it. You are still, from one very narrow point of view - a sort of bony fish. You are also a human being. These two things are not exclusive. Gnathostomata ftw! The differences you see are accumulated. Our lineage went one way, our peers another. I doubt that you would notice any huge changes from one generation to the next in either lineage- and yet here we are, after so many generations - very different from each other indeed. You don't see much of yourself in a shark, I assume.......but it's there, or rather, both you and a shark have something of some common "other" within you. This too...can be observed.

[Anomalocaris]

1. If you believe in God, you are not open minded.

" I hope that we can all agree that evolution and adaptation do exist in nature. All living creatures (animals and plants alike) can adapt to conditions over time. My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species. Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc. "

The factual assertions therein are bullshit. But even if it weren't, you reasoning is still total and elementary bullshit. You proceed upon a false promise and uses reasoning so flawed it would be trivial for an junior high student to pinpoint.


You have all basis covered just so you can justify believing in God.


Open minded indeed.

[Esquilax]

Rob, with regards to your claim that species only reproduce their own species... please go and read a biology textbook. Because that claim only makes sense if you think evolution means a change in species over a single generation, which it doesn't. The things you accept, the adaptations, small changes within the species, are all that evolution predicts. But don't you think that those small changes will make the eventual result very different from where it started? Say, even a different species? If you walk one step at a time in one direction, you'll eventually walk a mile. It's the same principle with evolution; if you change a little bit every generation, you'll make a new species.

As to evidence of that, we have plenty. We have fairly comprehensive fossil lineages of land dwelling ungulates returning to the sea and evolving into modern day whales. We have fossil evidence of fish leaving the sea and becoming the first tetrapods. We have some cool fossils showing the transition from reptile to early mammals, and so much more I could literally write a book about it here and not be done. The troubling thing this thread shows is that you didn't bother to do any research before you decided to disagree with evolution; you decided that your intuitive, limited grasp of the subject was sufficient to dismiss the work of over a century, by minds that have trained their whole lives to gain an understanding of this field.

I hope that this was merely an honest mistake, that you'll rectify. Evolution is too interesting a subject for yet another mind to be lost to it in favor of fairytales.

[Minimalist]

Why should we care about your opinion?

It is customary to introduce yourself before starting to beat dead horses again.

Why would you belong to a forum website that debates these sort of topics if you didn't care about anyone else's opinions? Isn't the point of this to consider other people's point of views so that we can have meaningful debates?

Your opinions are worthless. Present your facts. Surely you know what facts are.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.

You should really have a look at the literature before you come in here making absurd claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...tml#part5.

Since your argument is that without speciation Darwinian evolution cannot be true, then if speciation is observed, Darwinian evolution MUST be true. Given the information in the link, Darwin's right and you're wrong, QED.

Boru

[downbeatplumb]

This was not a fun new chew toy.

I am disappointed.