Is There a Non-Religious Argument Against Evolution?

[jamesb-uk]

Can you see a logically justifiable, non-religious argument to oppose the fact that evolution happens? Do you think that there is sufficient evidence to say that the existence of evolution is almost certain, or as close to certain as many other comparable scientific observations?

Do you know of anyone who disagrees with evolution on non-religious grounds?

 

[AUMathTutor]

I think evolution is an easy theory to doubt, just because its effects are not as immediate as some other physical phenomena's.

What do I mean? I doubt anybody disbelieves in the idea that gravity acts between massy bodies. Why? Everybody experiences this every day when they wake up. It's easy to test.

Evolution - at least macroevolution - is impossible to test. We just can't wait around that long and see. Anything that takes longer than a human lifetime to observe is subject to some additional amount of doubt and suspicion. Seeing is believing.

Perhaps there is also a dimension to this including what the public perceives as an absence of falsifiability of the theory. That is, a theory for which there is no method to try disproving it is suspect. Evolution gives off an aura of "story telling". Also, its claims can't really be easily tested to predict events in the future. Etc. Etc.

I doubt even the most staunch fundamentalist religious nuts would argue against microevolution. You can observe things evolving to adapt to their environment in short order... bacteria, insects, etc. Many of the issues applicable to the idea of long-term evolution are not present in the more restricted cases.

 

[Moonbear]

Macro and micro evolution are a false dichotomy created by those who oppose evolution who had to find a way to dismiss the evidence of evolution people CAN see in their lifetimes, such as antibiotic resistant bacteria. It is all evolution.

 

[jamesb-uk]

Macro and micro evolution are a false dichotomy created by those who oppose evolution who had to find a way to dismiss the evidence of evolution people CAN see in their lifetimes, such as antibiotic resistant bacteria. It is all evolution.

Yes, we know that over many generations (each lasting for only around 10 days), fruit flies can change their genome in certain circumstances. If the genome can change slightly, then it could change more, and as the appearance and characteristics of a species are largely dictated by its genetics, then the whole species should surely be able to change.

 

[BoomBoom]

I think evolution is an easy theory to doubt, just because its effects are not as immediate as some other physical phenomena's.
...
I doubt even the most staunch fundamentalist religious nuts would argue against microevolution.

And what would be the difference in the biological process between what you call "micro" and "macro" evolution?

There is really no reason whatsoever to doubt evolution...unless it somehow compromises your "faith" that God created everything.

So, to answer the OP's questions:
NO! ...there is no logically justifiable, non-religious argument to oppose the fact that evolution happens.
YES!...there is sufficient evidence to say that the existence of evolution is almost certain, or as close to certain as many other comparable scientific observations

 

[cesiumfrog]

And what would be the difference in the biological process between what you call "micro" and "macro" evolution?

Presumably (by "macro..") they are referring to (an apparent dearth of observed examples of) a natural genetic mutation that proves advantageous to the wild organism (or successive such mutations increasing speciation in nature).

As opposed to deliberate splicing ("engineering"), mere changes in the frequency of pre-existing alleles (textbook "micro.."), or mutations that are disadvantageous in the wild (but advantageous in some artificial medium). They probably also exclude viruses (do those even have species? Perhaps they're waiting on a clear-cut example that affects animal morphology..).

 

[BoomBoom]

Presumably (by "macro..") they are referring to (an apparent dearth of observed examples of) a natural genetic mutation that proves advantageous to the wild organism (or successive such mutations increasing speciation in nature).

As opposed to deliberate splicing ("engineering"), mere changes in the frequency of pre-existing alleles (textbook "micro.."), or mutations that are disadvantageous in the wild (but advantageous in some artificial medium). They probably also exclude viruses (do those even have species? Perhaps they're waiting on a clear-cut example that affects animal morphology..).

Well, the point I was making is that there is no distinction between the two concepts when it comes down to the biological processes involved in reproduction. The same things (and there are many) that create genetic diversity and are responsible for adaptation also drive evolution of species.


I like how Moonbear put it a couple posts above... (well said)

It seems like the whole concept of "macro-evolution" only seems to exist in the minds of those who refuse to believe in evolution.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can you see a logically justifiable, non-religious argument to oppose the fact that evolution happens? Do you think that there is sufficient evidence to say that the existence of evolution is almost certain, or as close to certain as many other comparable scientific observations?

Do you know of anyone who disagrees with evolution on non-religious grounds?

I don't think anti-evolutionists use religious arguments to refute evolution. Their religion is their agenda (hidden or otherwise) for doing so, but I do believe they try to use logic (albeit bad, self-serving logic) to make their points.

Wait. Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying their arguments are logical, I'm saying rarely do any of them try to claim "evolution is wrong and the proof is because it refutes the bible (or somesuch)" - which is what it seems like you're suggesting.


If I may presume to rephrase what I think you want to ask, I think you're trying to ask: are there any anti-evolutionist proponents whose agenda is not religion-based, and/or who are not themselves religious.

 

[Moridin]

There are quite a few people who are not directly religious who oppose evolution, such as extremists on the political left. They hold that evolution is incompatible with their social agenda, because they think it refutes the idea of the blank slate (the idea that you are born with no innate features), and the noble savage (that humans in primitive pre-societial are peaceful but corrupted by state) and their view of equality. As Stephen Pinker argued at great length in the Blank Slate, only the two previous ideologies are disproved by evolutionary sciences (and that we don't really want those to be true anyways). He further argues that real equality is not the proposition that men and females are clones, but that equality means being treated as an individual, rather than the average of the group one has been assigned to. Very readable book about a lot of meta-issues.

Michael Shermer calls these "liberal creationists". In the below quote, he goes through reasons what he thinks motivates people to reject evolution.

"6. The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed or rigid human nature. This is a variant of genetic determinism and is a criticism leveled against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology because of the deterministic implications that we are resistant to political reforms and economic reapportionment policies. Interestingly, the first five reasons above tend to arise from the political right because of its strong religious conservative bent that sees evolutionary theory as a challenge to fundamental religious doctrines; this last reason surfaces from the political left because it is strong liberal bent that sees evolutionary theory as a challenge to their fundamental political doctrines. I call these positions conservative creationism and liberal creationism, respectively." (Shermer, Michael, "Foreword: Why People Do Not Accept Evolution" in Prothero, Donald, R., "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters", Colombia University Press, 2007. pp. xii)

However, the arguments used by the extremists on the political left to attack evolution are also invalid.

 

[MATLABdude]

There are quite a few people who are not directly religious who oppose evolution, such as extremists on the political left. They hold that evolution is incompatible with their social agenda, because they think it refutes the idea of the blank slate (the idea that you are born with no innate features), and the noble savage (that humans in primitive pre-societial are peaceful but corrupted by state) and their view of equality. As Stephen Pinker argued at great length in the Blank Slate, only the two previous ideologies are disproved by evolutionary sciences (and that we don't really want those to be true anyways). He further argues that real equality is not the proposition that men and females are clones, but that equality means being treated as an individual, rather than the average of the group one has been assigned to. Very readable book about a lot of meta-issues.

Michael Shermer calls these "liberal creationists". In the below quote, he goes through reasons what he thinks motivates people to reject evolution.

"6. The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed or rigid human nature. This is a variant of genetic determinism and is a criticism leveled against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology because of the deterministic implications that we are resistant to political reforms and economic reapportionment policies. Interestingly, the first five reasons above tend to arise from the political right because of its strong religious conservative bent that sees evolutionary theory as a challenge to fundamental religious doctrines; this last reason surfaces from the political left because it is strong liberal bent that sees evolutionary theory as a challenge to their fundamental political doctrines. I call these positions conservative creationism and liberal creationism, respectively." (Shermer, Michael, "Foreword: Why People Do Not Accept Evolution" in Prothero, Donald, R., "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters", Colombia University Press, 2007. pp. xii)

However, the arguments used by the extremists on the political left to attack evolution are also invalid.

Lysenkoism (in Stalinist Russia):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Interesting that while that was Soviet / communist thought, the Nazis were into eugenics and (racially tortured interpretations of) survival of the fittest. Equally pathological, but an interesting dichotomy, nevertheless.

Never heard of liberal creationism, though. Maybe it's just that they're not as evangelical (no pun intended, if any) or vocal as those on the right (Discovery Institute, various centers of creation "research", etc.)

 

[Moridin]

It is correct that the leftist opposition to evolution is not as evangelic as the rightist. As you noted, there are many right wing think tanks, such as the Discovery Institute, The Institute for Creation Research, Answers In Genesis etc. The term "liberal" is a bit of a misnomer in this context though, but used to differentiate between the two I guess. You can see these type of leftist extremism in the controversies regarding books such as The Bell Curve or A Natural History of Rape, for instance.

But even scientists like Stephen Jay Gould was a modest proponent on some version of the blank slate, although not as extreme as others.

 

[atyy]

Macro and micro evolution are a false dichotomy created by those who oppose evolution who had to find a way to dismiss the evidence of evolution people CAN see in their lifetimes, such as antibiotic resistant bacteria. It is all evolution.

"Macroevolution may or may not be an extrapolated form of microevolution". http://books.google.com/books?id=xPAPgcZflzYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA550,M1

 

[BoomBoom]

"Macroevolution may or may not be an extrapolated form of microevolution". http://books.google.com/books?id=xPAPgcZflzYC&printsec=frontcover#PPA550,M1

"The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is the distinction between evolution on the small scale and evolution on the large scale."

This whole concept (micro vs. macro) has more to do with semantics than it does biology.

Technically (or biologically), there is no such thing as "evolution on the large scale". It all comes down to nothing more than gene expression essentially, and there is nothing large scale about that.

 

[Moridin]

It is like saying you accept that micro-structures consist of atoms, but you cannot understand how macro-structures could ever consist of atoms.

 

[atyy]

It is like saying you accept that micro-structures consist of atoms, but you cannot understand how macro-structures could ever consist of atoms.

"More really is different" https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127314&page=6

?

 

[BoomBoom]

"More really is different" https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127314&page=6

When it comes to evolution, the "macroscopic" point of view is not really going to get us anywhere. Indeed for the last 150 years or so, we have been studying the macroscopic point of view, and we know it fairly well.

It is only recently that we have had the tools and the knowledge to really get down to the "nitty-gritty" details of how evolution works on the microscopic level. This is where all the answers lie...in knowing how the systems work on a molecule by molecule basis. Missing pieces of knowledge are being filled in every day and we will have a much more complete understanding of the mechanisms that play a role in evolution in the next decade or so.

 

[Moridin]

"More really is different" https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127314&page=6

?

Weak emergentism is not incompatible with scientific reductionism.

 

[byohannan]

Assuming that the first self producing molecule appeared close to 5 Billion years old, there is no feasible alernatives to evolution .It might need a lot of tweaks and minor or even major modilfications to explain certain observed criteria . But the fact the all of life is made of proteins which are made of 20 or so basic amino acids in a complex folded 3D structure explains that things are reused.

Testrosteron works the same way in a chimp and in human so also most of the other hormones. chimp DNA and human DNA shares 99% same sequence.

evolution should be more like crime scene analysis , relying solely on the evidences left
by the progressive modification of DNA and fossils

 

[Ophiolite]

Can you see a logically justifiable, non-religious argument to oppose the fact that evolution happens? Do you think that there is sufficient evidence to say that the existence of evolution is almost certain, or as close to certain as many other comparable scientific observations?

I have frequently been appalled by the poor quality of arguments offered by creationists on forums. On a number of occassions I have created a sockpuppet account with the express intention of arguing an anti-evolution case. In every instance I have quickly abandoned the idea because the position simply was not defensible when evidence and scientific methodology were applied.

Several posters have asserted that macroevolution and microevolution are different only in scale and hence the duration over which they act. They have further asserted that this dichotomy has been conceived and promoted by creationists as a means of discounting the evidence for microevolution.

The first point might be correct: micrcoevolution and macroevolution may be the same, but this is not necessarily so. The second point is certainly incorrect. The notion of macroevolution as a distinctly different phenomenon arose within the field of evolutionary biology.

For example, consider this abstract:

R.Goldschmidt and J. Huxley: creative parallelisms
Authors: M D Golubovskiĭ, Ia M Gall
The comparative analysis of scientific heritage of Richard Goldschmidt and Julian Huxley shows convincingly the resemblance of these two scientists' views over the core problems of evolutionary theory, genetics and development biology. They both contributed to developing a triad "genetics--development--evolution". The problem of a relative growth of animals was the central point in both Goldschmidt's and Huxley's works. Huxley developed a formula of the allometric growth (law of constant differential growth) while Goldschmidt was the first to draw up the broad interpretation of the consequences of that phenomenon. Both scientists belonged to initiators of development genetics and used the "non-morganian" genetics in their efforts of solving problems of macroevolution. Goldschmidt tended toward an idea of an important role of macromutation in the process of macroevolution, though Huxley adhered to more moderate views. But at the same time the concept of preadaptive mutations proposed by Huxley was close to Goldschmidt's idea of macromutants. It is shown that both scientists analyzed profoundly the changes in early stages of embryogenesis in respect to macroevolution. It is not likely to be reasonable to oppose firmly Goldschmidt's saltationism to the evolutionary synthesis of Huxley. They developed the larger biological problems in a similar way, and undoubtedly their works in the field helped to enrich the development of the views over genetics and evolution. The open-minded analysis of Goldschmidt's and Huxley's concepts leads to creating modern and up-to-date views over the theory of evolution where seemingly incompatible things go together rather well and supplement each other. Evo-Devo rediscovered Goldschmidt's Biology and Huxley's Synthesis.

 

[BoomBoom]

For example, consider this abstract:

R.Goldschmidt and J. Huxley: creative parallelisms
Authors: M D Golubovskiĭ, Ia M Gall

What publication is this abstract from? It kind of sounds like a book review...

Ahhh the good ole days when eugenics was all the craze!

 

[Ophiolite]

What publication is this abstract from?

Zh Obshch Biol. 2003 Nov-Dec;64(6):510-8.

 

[AUMathTutor]

For all the claims by the staunch evolutionists in this thread that those who doubt evolution are wrong and illogical, they seem to be making a lot of emotional, misleading, misinformed, and canned statements themselves.

The whole business about macroevolution and microevolution being the same because it's all genetic material is a sleight of hand. The issue at hand is this: while the changing of the color of a moth's wings over the course of, who knows, 30 years as a result of microevolution in accordance with the idea of survival of the fittest is probably beyond reproach, the idea that what we today see as two fundamentally distinct animals - people and turtles, for instance - share a common ancestor is a more controversial statement.

I don't see how this is an issue of ideology, at heart. If there were the kind of directly verifiable evidence for macroevolution as there is for microevolution, the debate would be a non-issue.

When I say that releasing things on Earth will cause them to fall, and then explain this via the idea of gravity, this is a weighty argument I'm making. When I claim that the universe is mostly comprised of a "dark" substance that we have never observed but which must exist so that physical theories work, this is a somewhat less weighty assertion. The burden of proof is on the evolutionist, if others are to be convinced.

It would be well to remember that what might pass for evidence in tightly knit scientific circles may not be adequate for public opinion. Non-specialists need evidence anybody can understand, or they have only two options: trust or disbelief. If you don't provide compelling evidence (and what you might count as compelling others might not), how can you complain when they choose disbelief over trust? You put them in that situation.

Perhaps the proponents of macroevolution should calm down and ask themselves the following question: if you knew nothing about evolution at all, and you had a bet with a friend that they could not really make you accept the truth of the theory, say for some large amount of money, would the best evidence they have actually convince you beyond any doubt?

If you would answer yes, you either overlooked the presence of the word "any" or have become just as fanatical as the other side.

 

[BoomBoom]

The whole business about macroevolution and microevolution being the same because it's all genetic material is a sleight of hand.

Sleight of hand? Microevolution over time and many generations in isolated populations will most likely result in what you call "macroevolution". As stated before, the biological process is the same...

If there were the kind of directly verifiable evidence for macroevolution as there is for microevolution, the debate would be a non-issue.

It is a non-issue (except for those that refuse to believe it) and comparative genomics along with the fossil record provides lots of evidence.

It would be well to remember that what might pass for evidence in tightly knit scientific circles may not be adequate for public opinion. Non-specialists need evidence anybody can understand, or they have only two options: trust or disbelief.

These "tightly knit scientific circles" you speak of seem to include the entire scientific community, for the most part. So yes, you can trust the experts, or disbelieve them...whatever floats your boat. Or a third option would be to read up on the subject and learn the truth for yourself.

 

[BWV]

theories are replaced by other theories and not rejected out of hand without an alternative

are there any alternative theories to evolution that a reasonable person could hold? I don't think so

of course this is limiting evolution to its broadest interpetation - common descent, natural selection and variation etc without getting into the specific mechanics about which there is legitimate disagreement

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how this is an issue of ideology, at heart. If there were the kind of directly verifiable evidence for macroevolution as there is for microevolution, the debate would be a non-issue...

It would be well to remember that what might pass for evidence in tightly knit scientific circles may not be adequate for public opinion. Non-specialists need evidence anybody can understand, or they have only two options: trust or disbelief. If you don't provide compelling evidence (and what you might count as compelling others might not), how can you complain when they choose disbelief over trust? You put them in that situation...

The burden of proof is on the evolutionist, if others are to be convinced.

The vast majority of science is performed out of view of the general public. Scientists quite simply don't care if you believe them or not. Why should they? It has no relevance to their work! The universe doesn't care if you believe in its laws or not!

Evolution has no effect on your everday life, but a similar example that does is quantum mechanics. A lot of people object to quantum mechanics for various reasons, but that hasn't stopped scientists and engineers from making quantum mechanics the foundation on which most of our modern technology is based. There is no need to argue with a crackpot about the double-slit experiment because they don't have to convince the crackpot of the validity of the idea before they implement it. But it is ironic that such crackpots will argue against QM using computers, who'se operation relies heavily on the vailidy of QM!

When I say that releasing things on Earth will cause them to fall, and then explain this via the idea of gravity, this is a weighty argument I'm making. When I claim that the universe is mostly comprised of a "dark" substance that we have never observed but which must exist so that physical theories work, this is a somewhat less weighty assertion.

You can view gravity operating first hand. I get it. But the fact that you aren't able to think outside of what you can see with the naked eye and on a human timescale isn't a problem with evolution, it is a problem with your ability to use rational thought.

Perhaps the proponents of macroevolution should calm down and ask themselves the following question: if you knew nothing about evolution at all, and you had a bet with a friend that they could not really make you accept the truth of the theory, say for some large amount of money, would the best evidence they have actually convince you beyond any doubt?

If you would answer yes, you either overlooked the presence of the word "any" or have become just as fanatical as the other side.

Openly adding the word "any" makes the exercise an intentional logical fallacy. You gave us an improper question and told us that it is an improper question*! Moreover, this implies that you have no real desire to apply rational thought to this issue. You're playing games with us and you need to stop.

*Rest assured: we're smart enough here that you need not have pointed out that the question was flawed. We would have noticed and would have rejected the question accordingly.

 

[DaveC426913]

It would be well to remember that what might pass for evidence in tightly knit scientific circles may not be adequate for public opinion. Non-specialists need evidence anybody can understand

How novel.

The scientific community is lax when it comes to what passes for evidence. It is the unwashed masses that determine when something is accepted. :rofl:

It would be very ... interesting to live in AUMathTutorWorld.




Never let scientific rigor stand in the way of a good bit of ... what was that word ...

Oh yeah.

Truthiness.

 

[JazzFusion]

Getting a little warm in this room...

Please forgive my intrusion into the biology forum, as I am a mere physicist. However, since this is the 'Physics Forums' site, what-the-heck ;-)

The first time I heard of a dichotomy between micro- and macro- evolution, it was in a biology setting, and not in any religious debate. To the best of my understanding and recollection, 'micro' referred to changes that do not alter the species of the target population, while 'macro' was used to describe cummulative changes resulting in speciization. Thus, as AUMath pointed out, the 'micro' cases are easier to accept, as they can be seen and experienced, while the 'macro' cases, generally, have not been seen or even reported in the literature. As examples, the large experimental data set of genetic mutations in fruit flies has been noted previously in this thread. However, to the best of my knowledge, in all the cummulative generations of fruit flies produced, no one has claimed to have observed or bred a new species of fly.

I am aware of several reports of speciization in recent history in the literature (primarily in plant species in isolated locations). However, I must note that, in order to report an observed occurence of a new species arising, the definition of 'species' was changed, compared to what it was in ancient times (back when I was in grad school).

As a physicist, I will use the terms 'micro' and 'macro' because they correlate to observable, reproducible effects with which I am familiar in thermodynamics and/or information theory. By way of simple analogy, I can shuffle two decks of cards and deal out 26 cards at random from each to produce a new 'deck'. I can repeat this process with stacks of new decks, and in only a few 'generations', I can produce decks that are all red, or all black, or made of all face cards. By isolating subsets of decks, I can produce whole populations of decks that are similarly skewed from the standard distribution in a new deck. I will not, however, no matter how many times I shuffle and deal, produce a deck that includes a three of potatoes, or a green ace. In other words, by adding energy, I can decrease the entropy of a specific subgroup of decks, but left to itself, this system will not yield new information. Even in genetic mutations in pathogens (also brought up earlier in this thread), those cases for which I am aware involve a net loss of genetic information.

Popular opposition to unequivocal acceptance of evolution arises from related experiences. Dogs, horses, and cattle are routinely bred to achieve advantageous features in subsequent generations. Subsequent generations, however, are still dogs, horses, or cattle.

So, in answer to the original post, are there reasons non-religious for opposition to macro evolution? Yes. Microevolution is observable, repeatable, can be modeled, and can be predicted, therefore it passes muster for having been 'proved' as much as any other scientific model (those who do theoretical work will understand my reluctance to use 'proved' in relation to scientific models). Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been observed (unless the definition of 'species' is altered) or repeated. Therefore, I file it under "possible, but not confirmed".

Want to win me and thousands like me over to your 'side'? You have the tools - produce a new species of fruit fly.

 

[DaveC426913]

Popular opposition to unequivocal acceptance of evolution arises from related experiences. Dogs, horses, and cattle are routinely bred to achieve advantageous features in subsequent generations. Subsequent generations, however, are still dogs, horses, or cattle.

...

Want to win me and thousands like me over to your 'side'? You have the tools - produce a new species of fruit fly.

A definition of a distinct species is that it cannot breed with others of its kind without assistance.

Can a chihuahua breed with a Great Dane? At what point do we decide that they are no longer inter-breedable?

 

[BoomBoom]

So, in answer to the original post, are there reasons non-religious for opposition to macro evolution? Yes. Microevolution is observable, repeatable, can be modeled, and can be predicted, therefore it passes muster for having been 'proved' as much as any other scientific model (those who do theoretical work will understand my reluctance to use 'proved' in relation to scientific models). Macroevolution, on the other hand, has not been observed (unless the definition of 'species' is altered) or repeated. Therefore, I file it under "possible, but not confirmed".

OK, so what would you suggest as an alternative theory to explain the emergence of species? Have you ever even heard of any theory that counters evolution on nonreligious grounds? It's got to be either aliens or God, right?

Comparisons of the genomic sequence between related species really does provide "smoking gun" type evidence of past biological events that resulted in divergence of species. There are countless examples amongst multitudes of species. There really is no non-religious alternative theory out there...or if there is, nobody has yet suggested it in this thread.

 

[JazzFusion]

Good point, Dave. Personally, I would look at artificial ensemination as the 'gold standard' in deciding if a new species has truly been achieved, in that specific case (but as I said, I'm only a physicist).

BTW, for those entering the field of evolutionary microbiology, I have a suggestion for a research project. Our entire discussion over whether or not macroevolution is 'true' is moot if that information can't be used to make verifiable predictions about what is likely to occur next. Many years ago, while modeling EM wave propagations and interactions, I came across a simulation approach called 'Simulated Annealing' (fairly new at the time, but probably commonplace by now). This approach used exactly the types of entropy/information considerations I described before to converge rapidly into optimizations in a wide range of applications. If not in use already, I suspect this family of optimization techniques would have direct application to modeling genetic mutations, so that (hopefully) emerging pathogens and/or their responses to new contraventions could be predicted. Not to derail this thread, but I am curious to know if anyone active in the field is familiar with this type of approach, or if it has been done already.

@ BoomBoom (you posted your response while I was still typing this one): Lack of a viable alternative theory does not prove the adequacy of the current theory. For over a millenium, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was the only game in town. If you desire to confirm your model as correct, you need to make a prediction a priori and then demonstrate its validity (hence the suggestions about fruit flies, or even computer models).

 

[BWV]

"Our entire discussion over whether or not macroevolution is 'true' is moot if that information can't be used to make verifiable predictions about what is likely to occur next."

thats a red herring and the general problem with people pontificating outside their area of expertise. Climatology cannot tell us whether it will rain next week, but that does not make it invalid. Evolution makes testable predictions about what one expects to find in nature - for example a large number of new species in an ecosystem that has been isolated for a long period of time (i.e. Australia or the Galapagos islands). The very concept of a discrete species is a relic of Platonism and the reality is much more complex. Talkorgins has a long list of speciation events, which you are free to discount to your liking:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution is an entirely adequate theory to understand biology even if all its mechanisms are not fully understood (and perhaps ultimately unknowable).

 

[BoomBoom]

@ BoomBoom (you posted your response while I was still typing this one): Lack of a viable alternative theory does not prove the adequacy of the current theory. For over a millenium, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was the only game in town. If you desire to confirm your model as correct, you need to make a prediction a priori and then demonstrate its validity (hence the suggestions about fruit flies, or even computer models).

Well, the OP was asking about if there were any viable non-religious alternatives to evolution. In its rawest of forms, evolution is the concept of new species emerging from other related species through adaptation over time. This concept cannot logically be denied, as the only other alternative is that they just appeared out of nowhere...which IMO is utterly ridiculous.

The intracacies and details of how genetic information is expressed is a very active field in biology right now. The whole system is incredibly complex and there is much to be learned. Computer models have been and are being developed. The specific answers are on the horizon and new discoveries are made all the time.

I'm sure some "mad scientist" could create a new life form in the lab right now (ethics be damned)...but that wouldn't be "proof", although for some reason you seem to think it would be?

 

[ideasrule]

Creationist: I think the world is 6000 years old.

Scientist (laughing): HA! Nice one! Did you just write a fantasy novel or something?

Creationist: I'm SERIOUS. The world is 6000 years old. Look at all this evidence...blah blah blah blah blah...

Scientist: Um, yeah. Alright then, there's radioactive material that decays at a known rate. Based on how much of this material is left in rocks, we can tell the Earth is definitely billions of years old.

Creationist: But look! This one guy managed to screw up while using radiometric dating. Surely that means every measurement made using every radiometric dating method is wrong?

Scientist: OK then, our tree ring records extend back further than 6000 years. Fossils take millions of years to form. So do stars and planets; just look at how slowly that solar system over there is forming.

Creationist: No, the solar system was created in one day. It says so right here in this two-thousand-year-old book.

Scientist: What book? Let me see that...
So it says here that God made everything in seven days, and then...
Look, what would make you believe the universe wasn't created in 7 days? What kind of evidence?

Creationist: Nothing, except traveling back in time.

Scientist: OK then, I'll take you back in time. Look at those distant galaxies. That's what the universe looked like billions of years before. Look at the cosmic microwave background; that was emitted 400 000 years after the Big Bang. All of this fits perfectly with Big Bang cosmology.

Creationist: But Big Bang is a theory, and...
Scientist: OK, I give up.

Creationist (to another person): Hey, did you know everything scientists told you is a big lie? The Big Bang? Come on.

Layman: I'm listening...

Creationist: Well, there are many problems with...blah blah blah...
Layman: Well, I guess I should keep an open mind.

 

[Evo]

Locked pending moderation.