Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[DJ...]

There seems to be an increase in the number of people objecting to evolution and ToE these days, so it would be good to collate these objections into a single thread to discuss.

If you have logical and/or scientific objections against evolution and the theory of evolution, please post them in this thread for us to discuss reasonably. That way we can bring some sort of cohesion to these arguments and prevent the disparate posting of nonsense.

Note that this is not a dumping ground for religious objections as it doesn't meet the criteria for being logical (in the sense that it can be debated), nor is it scientific.

So, why do you reject evolution or what aspects of evolution irk you?

 

[darksidehippo]

There are none. Only simple canards that confuse the dumb. Evolution threads should be banned outside of PD and heavily moderated in Natural Sciences. I see 34568973458973489573 clones and sock puppets are opening them in the strangest sections.

 

[Techne]

Evolution just means change. Things change. I think we can all agree on this simple fact right, you know, that things change from one thing to another? This is a deceptively intuitive and common sense view of how we experience things. Empirical data suggest that a few billion years ago there was not life on earth and later there was life. Obviously something that was not life changed into being life right? And this life changed over time to what we observe today. I mean this is just simply common sense by now if you accept the empirical data right?

However, there are arguments that change does not occur, that what we perceive as change is just an illusion.

Parmenides was one of the first people to make such an argument and if one believes in a 4-dimesnional block universe another argument can be made for it.

Parmenides’ argument essentially goes something like this: Let's use a simple example of water changing to hydrogen and oxygen.
1) Something exists or it does not exist.
2) If something does not exist then it is nothing.
3) From nothing, nothing comes.
4) Water exists during one moment and this turns into hydrogen and oxygen at another moment.
5) But water cannot change to nothing and then from this nothing becomes hydrogen and oxygen.
6) Therefore there is no change. Change is an illusion and water, and hydrogen and oxygen exist just at different times but they are equally real.

So if we believe Parmenides then evolution does not happen and we just have to get over it. Biological organisms do not evolve, they just exist at different moments. Water does not change to hydrogen and oxygen, they just exist at different moments, you get the idea.

In contemporary philosophy, four-dimensionalism and eternalism are probably the best ways to defend such a view. Graph structuralism is another way of defending it but they all boil down to a similar view of reality. On this view, reality is a single block of space-time and individual objects are spread out in space-time like a 4D worm and also “grows” as space-time parts are added. In philosophy jargon it is said that objects perdure through space-time, they don’t endure change since they do not change at all.

So there you have it, there are arguments against the existence or reality of change and therefore biological evolution. You don't have to accept these arguments, you may not even agree with them, I don't. The point is, there are logical arguments against the reality of evolution.

 

[Unhappy438]

/snip

This entire argument is philosophical.

 

[Techne]

This entire argument is philosophical.

Logical too.

 

[Unhappy438]

Logical too.

I thought you might say that, regardless it has no science to support its view or does it? Otherwise i fail to see its relevance in the science section. Perhaps pose the question in the philosophy section?

 

[Techne]

I thought you might say that, regardless it has no science to support its view or does it? Otherwise i fail to see its relevance in the science section. Perhaps pose the question in the philosophy section?

Logical arguments do not necessarily depend on empirical science. Anyway, four-dimensionalism is derived from Einstein's developments of space-time.

 

[Unhappy438]

Logical arguments do not necessarily depend on empirical science. Anyway, four-dimensionalism is derived from Einstein's developments of space-time.

We are arguing semantics and im not sure what the OP had in mind from the thread title. I will leave a Hitchens quote which i think is quite relevant to this section 'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

 

[DJ...]

I really wasn't trying to frame these debates in any philosophical manner whatsoever, and Techne is well aware of that...

 

[porchrat]

Logical too.

"Scientific and logical"

Not or, and.

Leave the philosophy in PD where it belongs.

 

[cyghost]

"Scientific and logical"

Not or, and.

Leave the philosophy in PD where it belongs.

to be fair...

If you have logical and/or scientific objections against evolution and the theory of evolution

but, I am pretty sure we require sound logical arguments and not mere valid ones...

And Parmy's argument breaks down at 5 while 4 may need some rewording as well....

ETA: with an ironic nod to the fact that to accept or as it was strangly put, believe Parmy's "logic" we need to deny observable reality....

 

[porchrat]

to be fair...

Ah didn't spot that when I read through it again to be sure. My bad entirely.

 

[Swa]

There seems to be an increase in the number of people objecting to evolution and ToE these days, so it would be good to collate these objections into a single thread to discuss.

If you have logical and/or scientific objections against evolution and the theory of evolution, please post them in this thread for us to discuss reasonably. That way we can bring some sort of cohesion to these arguments and prevent the disparate posting of nonsense.

Good idea. The only problem with this is it can't happen here. See 2nd post.

There has been a lot of logical and scientific objections to evolution but it always happens that someone injects their anti-religious garbage into it. Just look at all the threads so far and you'll see. Granted these are only a few bad apples but it nonetheless means that while this happens no real debate can take place. If you want real debate then get a place where everyone is allowed to post and where these sidetracks are not allowed.

For now I think the following will suffice:

'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

 

[Techne]

Good idea. The only problem with this is it can't happen here. See 2nd post.

There has been a lot of logical and scientific objections to evolution but it always happens that someone injects their anti-religious garbage into it. Just look at all the threads so far and you'll see. Granted these are only a few bad apples but it nonetheless means that while this happens no real debate can take place. If you want real debate then get a place where everyone is allowed to post and where these sidetracks are not allowed.

For now I think the following will suffice:

Join www.sciforums.com.

And isn't it "That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof"? Not sure which one it is.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

Evolution:

Similar to the 'thousand monkeys typing on a thousand typewriters'- eventually a novel will be produced. However unlikely, its possible that given enough time the novel will be produced - accidentally. Likewise with evolution a single cell or a collection of lifeless chemicals will accidentally undergo changes and/or mutations caused by random factors leading to the variety of life as we know it today - accidentally.

Intelligent Design:

Somewhere, somehow and for some reason someone or something provided active input. Because the method or intention may not be understood does not make it false.

Both possible, neither can be written off.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Why do people call it 'accidental'? This implies that something happened which shouldn't have. Something essentially went wrong. On what do we base this?

 

[Unhappy438]

And isn't it "That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof"? Not sure which one it is.

Google says evidence?

 

[Freshy-ZN]

Why do people call it 'accidental'? This implies that something happened which shouldn't have. Something essentially went wrong. On what do we base this?

So you suggest the single cell had becoming homo sapiens in mind all along? Of course its accidental then. Accidental means occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

 

[Unhappy438]

So you suggest the single cell had becoming homo sapiens in mind all along? Of course its accidental then. Accidental means occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Think baby steps

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So you suggest the single cell had becoming homo sapiens in mind all along? Of course its accidental then. Accidental means occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Of course I'm not suggesting that. Just depends how the word is used and what is meant by it. Perhaps incidental is a better word to use? I suppose it's neither here nor there, though. Carry on.