Errors in the theory of evolution

[YmirGF]

Can you see some errors in this theory? Do find it to be worth believing and why?

Not really, no. It is pretty solid as theories go, imho. For the most part I have found that those who dismiss evolution usually do so because they do not understand it very well. Add to this the reality that I have yet to hear a single compelling argument originating from the Creationist/Intelligent Design camps and my feelings on the matter should be fairly clear. One should not pander to ignorance more than is necessary.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... those who dismiss evolution usually do so because they do not understand it very well.

Pathetically, persistently, and pretentiously, with all the acumen of a high school dropout ...

 

[Renji]

The theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. This includes the theory that man is developed from the ancestral apes.

According to the scientists," they believe in the evolution theory of man's origin. This theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin, a British Scientist, as published in his book Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. According to Darwin, man was not created by God; he was a product of evolution or development through successive species beginning from the primate apes."

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link" between or common ancestor of ape and man" -The World History, fifth edition by Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, "The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link" between or common ancestor of ape and man" -The World History, fifth edition by Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

You have no idea how laughable that is. You clearly deserve your ignorance having worked so hard to buttress it.

 

[fantome profane]

The theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities).

You are aware of course that absolutely all scientific theories are naturalistic? And that the theory of evolution is no different in this respect from the theory or relativity, or the theory of electromagnetism, or germ theory, or atomic theory etc.

 

[LuisDantas]

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link" between or common ancestor of ape and man" -The World History, fifth edition by Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

Sorry, but this IS laughable. Ask any biologist whether evolution is "only a theory" or fact.

 

[Renji]

You are aware of course that absolutely all scientific theories are naturalistic? And that the theory of evolution is no different in this respect from the theory or relativity, or the theory of electromagnetism, or germ theory, or atomic theory etc.

Yes. I just posted it.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

The theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. This includes the theory that man is developed from the ancestral apes.

According to the scientists," they believe in the evolution theory of man's origin. This theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin, a British Scientist, as published in his book Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. According to Darwin, man was not created by God; he was a product of evolution or development through successive species beginning from the primate apes."

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link" between or common ancestor of ape and man" -The World History, fifth edition by Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

I would suggest that you read articles about this theory written by a biologist instead of an historian.

 

[doppelganger]

I would suggest that you read articles about this theory written by a biologist instead of an historian.

I would suggest an introductory text on the Philosophy of Science before he goes any further.

 

[darkendless]

The theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. This includes the theory that man is developed from the ancestral apes.

According to the scientists," they believe in the evolution theory of man's origin. This theory was first proposed by Charles Darwin, a British Scientist, as published in his book Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. According to Darwin, man was not created by God; he was a product of evolution or development through successive species beginning from the primate apes."

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link" between or common ancestor of ape and man" -The World History, fifth edition by Gregorio and Sonia Zaide.

If you were a science student you would know better than this. May i ask how far you're into your course? Im doing a first year course on Earth Science right now where we're currently talking about the biosphere (upper lithosphere and lower troposphere). Evolution is a fact, theres no doubt about. Relatively (in some cases absolutely based on how recent the epoch is) there is a clear chronology of evolutionary processes. If you're one of those people who refuses to admit that 4.4 billion years ago we were bacteria/tiny organisms who lived in a puddle of water in fear of UV radiation then a science course is not for you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would suggest that you read articles about this theory written by a biologist instead of an historian.

That would hardly be supportive of a commitment to willful ignorance.

 

[Troublemane]

ignorance is bliss.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes. I just posted it.

Ok, good. Moving on.

Do you also realize that absolutely nothing in science is ever proven beyond all doubt? And do you realize that although not proven beyond doubt, an idea must have substantial proof behind it before it can even be called a theory in the scientific sense? And do you realize that the theory of evolution in particular has a great deal of proof behind it and is an extremely useful theory in biology?

 

[darkendless]

Ok, good. Moving on.

Do you also realize that absolutely nothing in science is ever proven beyond all doubt? And do you realize that although not proven beyond doubt, an idea must have substantial proof behind it before it can even be called a theory in the scientific sense? And do you realize that the theory of evolution in particular has a great deal of proof behind it and is an extremely useful theory in biology?

Would you agree that there is such comprehensive evidence behind the theory of evolution that its concept is almost factual. I mean sure they change the theory itself every few months, but the concept that we have evolved from smaller organisms, do you think that is worthy or close to worthy of fact.

 

[lunamoth]

Would you agree that there is such comprehensive evidence behind the theory of evolution that its concept is almost factual. I mean sure they change the theory itself every few months, but the concept that we have evolved from smaller organisms, do you think that is worthy or close to worthy of fact.

The main points of the theory have not changed since Darwin wrote it.

 

[fantome profane]

Would you agree that there is such comprehensive evidence behind the theory of evolution that its concept is almost factual. I mean sure they change the theory itself every few months, but the concept that we have evolved from smaller organisms, do you think that is worthy or close to worthy of fact.

As much as anything can be considered a fact, yes.

 

[doppelganger]

The main points of the theory have not changed since Darwin wrote it.

I think I generally disagree. At its inception, the theory was not a substantial improvement over LaMarck's until genetic models began to develop as the explanatory mechanism for transmitting change affected by natural selection over generations. Darwin largely had no specific mechanism for the transmittal of change from one generation to the next.

 

[lunamoth]

At its inception, the theory was not a substantial improvement over LaMarck's until genetic models began to develop as the explanatory mechanism for transmitting change affected by natural selection over generations. Darwin largely had no specific mechanism for the transmittal of change from one generation to the next.

I agree. But still, the main points of his theory of evolution, and really they are very simple (variation acted upon by natural selection) are the heart of the theory and they still stand at the center of the ToE.

 

[Yerda]

At its inception, the theory was not a substantial improvement over LaMarck's...

I haven't read what Lamarck wrote, only textbook material on the matter. Darwinism as presented in those same texts, without genetics, always seemed a much more compelling and satisfying explanation. In fact the genetic revolution obscured the field of understanding for a time I had read.

 

[lunamoth]

I haven't read what Lamarck wrote, only textbook material on the matter. Darwinism as presented in those same texts, without genetics, always seemed a much more compelling and satisfying explanation. In fact the genetic revolution obscured the field of understanding for a time I had read.

Lamarck's ideas were not as satisfying because they did not get at the idea that it was reproductive success that was critical. But, he was describing a kind of inherited change over time and there were also others predating Darwin who discussed evolution of traits (change over time). It was the key compenents of natural variation existing in populations combined with competition and natural selection that made Darwin's theory distinctive, and correct.