What are the biggest holes in evolution?
or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions
I'm sorry, but this must be one of the absolute stupidest things you could say on this forum. Almost every single person on here used to reject evolution. Our preconception was that evolution was FALSE!
It was only because of evidence based arguments that we changed our minds!
And I really don't know what to say here, it's like someone asking me, "What are the holes in the theory of gravity?"
"What are the holes in Atomic Theory?"
"What are the holes in Cell Theory?"
As far as I know, there aren't any holes in any of these. Or in evolution. And if I could find a hole in any of them, I would write a peer reviewed paper on it and win myself a Noble Prize!
Hello there shadow,
So you want me to criticize evolution?
...Ok evolution I stab at thee.
Abiogenesis - Nobody knows exactly how it works yet. There are strong conjectures emerging and there are also busy little bees in laboratories building self replicating molecules, but nothing remotely close to a complete satisfactory explanation.
The common ancestor - Turns out these self replicating molecules were shooting their material at each other in all sorts of novel ways, so the common ancestor is probably not a single individual but rather a gooey mush of ancestors.
The fossil record - It will always remain incomplete no matter how many intermediaries are found.
AND here's the current dirty secret: Aquatic ape theory. Why are humans relatively hairless? Why do we need iodine in our diets in rather elevated quantities compared to other apes? Why can humans get sickeningly fat like sea cows? Have you ever seen an obese chimpanzee? Why are we bipedal when other apes on the savanna plains still use all fours (well mostly). There are many other facts which don't add up currently.
The next reply is not to mock you or make you an atheist. I just want to make you think about your reasoning. So don't feel obliged to respond, but please answer those questions for yourself.
1) It seems predicated on the assumption that there is no God, or intelligent designer.
This is completely not true. Evolution does not rule out God. Most Christian churches accept evolution, so it must be compatible?
In fact, almost all of the early work done that lead to our current understanding of evolution was done by religious persons. And that continues today.
Anyway, the theory of evolution explains how all life evolved, but science can never prove (nor will they try) that God did or did not start or guide this process. It should be noted however that everything we understand so far does not need divine action to be explained.
2) The idea that simple organisms can mutate into increasingly complex ones. I'd like to see some evidence this is possible. To think 1-cell organisms can mutate, without a great deal of outside help, into modern humans over a long period of time, is difficult for me to accept.
Is it much easier to accept that an omniscient, omnipotent invisible being always existed or came to existence without cause?
Is the level of evidence you require to accept evolution equal to the level of evidence you require before accepting the existence of God? (Note: Bible contains claims about God, not evidence)
3) That life and intelligence can evolve from a spontaneous action.
You mean life and intelligence...as in...a living and intelligent God?
If evolution can be shown to be consistent with theism, I might be willing to accept it.
Are you saying that you are willing to reject evidence if it doesn't fit in with your current ideas?
Or are you saying you do see (know) much evidence for evolution.
Regardless, as stated before, evolution says nothing about the (non)existence of God. Evolution and God are totally compatible if you so wish.
However, evolution and a literal explanation of the Biblical creation story are not compatible.
And for that subject one could wonder:
- Do I accept the creation claims of a Bronze Age tribe chief, for which no evidence exists (but evidence against it does)?
- Or do I accept the evolution claims by thousands of people who studied that subject for years, and for which mountains of evidence exists, that can be researched by everyone who wishes to do so?
Even the Watchtower agrees species like dogs "evolve" into other breeds. But that it all started with Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit. There is no evidence of "Eden" and bible scolars agree Genesis was written in the 6th Century B.C.E by Jewish revisionists not Moses. You need to start from here!
The basic weakness of evolution is that it is the orthodoxy of the age that we live in. All orthodoxies have their day. We don't know how or by what it will be superseded.
we already have religious people claiming to be atheist - the trend in the 21st century seems to be for religion and science to settle their differences and work together more as each can enrich the other but I would rather that this relationship not become an orthodoxy
All orthodoxies have their day.
Bullshit. Will the orthodoxy of a heliocentric solar system have it's day? Will the orthodoxy of mathematics have it's day?
You constantly deny any bedrock to build on Slim'. Why? What is this fear you have of accepting that some things are settled?
Heliocentric solar system is a tautology. It's like saying will watery water have its day, or windy wind. If it wasn't heliocentric it would be called something other than a solar system wouldn't it? A geosystem or something. I know you think I am splitting hair but I am not. The language we use constitutes the world we live in.
The problem isn't heliocentrism, but the utter modern conviction that man is the measure of everything. Has anyone asked a dolphin his view of the world?
Has anyone asked a dolphin his view of the world?
Yes, her answer was: Do you have any fresh fish?
And was your answer: yes, 42?