The theory of evolution is wrong

[Rob060870]

dear readers,

i have a friend of mine who just doesn't believe in evolution!. i just find that very hard to believe as i thought the theory of evolution was one of mankinds strongest to date!. the thing is that he is an intelligent man!(he is a chemist for goodness sake!).
every time i try to give an argument for the case of evolution he comes up with a strong counter argument.

what i am asking of you readers is this
what is the best argument for evolution you can come up with? i need to checkmate my friend once and for all!

 

[zomgwtf]

dear readers,

i have a friend of mine who just doesn't believe in evolution! the thing is that he is an intelligent man!(he is a chemist for goodness sake!).
every time i try to give an argument for the case of evolution he comes up with a strong counter argument.

what i am asking of you readers is this
what is the best argument for evolution you can come up with? i need to checkmate my friend once and for all!

First off, evolution is a fact. I highly doubt that he is coming up with a 'strong counter argument'. That's like coming up with a strong counter argument to state that the Sun is smaller than the Earth... I'm sure that you could make up an argument but it'd hardly be considered strong at all. To show that evolution is fact you could merely question him about say the flu, why is it recommended to get a new flu shot every year... where do the strains come from? Or ring species, they clearly indicate evolution and I'm pretty sure it's even been observed.

Peppered moth always works well to teach about evolution and natural selection as well speciation has been observed quite a few times.

You should post his 'strong counter arguments' here because I believe this problem you are having is that you both do not know enough about evolution. (you included because if you KNEW what evolution was you'd easily be able to show that it occurs.)

 

[Rob060870]

evolution is acually not a fact but a theory a very strong one i might add and one which i firmly believe in. theories can never be proven only strengthened by observation or other means of proof. or of course disproven which i don't believe will ever happen.
thanks for your input, i don't believe you realize how hard it is to make this man believe in evolution.
i explaned to him about the evolution of the peppered moth which were light coloured to start with and then the industrial revolution happened and a mutation acounted for a dark moth to appear then because of the pollution the white ones were the moths that got eaten more often because they were more visable to predators and through natural selection over a fairly short time the dark moths in time passed on their genes and then in turn became more abundant!
he just wouldn't have it! i will have to note down his arguments in detail so we can disect them at our lesure.
thanks
Rob060870

 

[sas3]

evolution is acually not a fact but a theory a very strong one i might add and one which i firmly believe in. theories can never be proven only strengthened by observation or other means of proof. or of course disproven which i don't believe will ever happen.
thanks for your input, i don't believe you realize how hard it is to make this man believe in evolution.
i explaned to him about the evolution of the peppered moth which were light coloured to start with and then the industrial revorlution happened and a mutation acounted for a dark moth to appear then because of the pollution the white ones were the moths that got eaten more often because they were more visable to predators and through natural selection over a fairly short time the dark moths in time passed on their genes and then in turn became more abundant!
he just wouldn't have it! i will have to note down his arguments in detail so we can disect them at our lesure.
thanks
Rob060870

No, evolution is a fact, the change has happened and has been observed and this change is evolution.
The theory of evolution is about understanding the mechanism of the change, not the change itself.

 

[zomgwtf]

evolution is acually not a fact but a theory a very strong one i might add and one which i firmly believe in. theories can never be proven only strengthened by observation or other means of proof. or of course disproven which i don't believe will ever happen.

No. This is not true there is a theory of Natural Selection, which ThomasEdison has pointed out. This theory was brought about to explain evolution.

ThomasEdison is also correct when he states that most people who are arguing against evolution bring up other theories in order to somehow discredit evolution. That's their perogative, as I said before it comes down to a misunderstanding of what the phenomena is.
To list out the most popular potential arguments used by people arguing 'against evolution':

1. Evolution doesn't show where life originated, therefore it's wrong.
This is wrong because evolution does not encompass any theories of origin of life. Evolution in a biological sense only occurs when life is existing. The theory which discusses where life on Earth originated is called abiogenesis and it is not really a theory of biology but a theory of chemistry. Which I'm sure your 'chemist friend' surely knows.

2. Microevolution occurs but Macroevolution doesn't.
First it's necessary to understand there is 'no such thing' as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. These terms were brought into existence by creationist in order to dispute that one lifeform can, over time, change into another. You have to find out where the arbitrary cut-off point is for micro-macro evolution and why the cut-off is located at that 'point'. Normally it's speciation, however speciation has been observed plenty of times. Normally they twist the definition of species since it's not a very well defined word in biology currently but that doesn't change the fact that some level of what they would call 'macroevolution' does occur.

3. Sometimes they attempt to use mathematics in order to 'prove' that evolution could never occur.
You would have to post the specific attempt here in order for it to be deconstructed.

4. The fact that animals only give birth to animals which are like themselves disproves evolution since beneficial mutations occur very rarely.
Well since there is a plethora of observed instances of evolution there's really no point in wasting time to argue against this. If a person attempts to use this argument continues to be ignorant of observations then you're much better off not arguing with them any further.

5. The 'transitional' lifeform argument.
This is quite possibly the most infamous argument used by creationist to disprove evolution. It really doesn't follow logically it's like asking: Where does black end and white begin on a black->white gradient? Pointless question.

As you can see there are PLENTY of arguments which attempt to 'disprove evolution'. Sometimes people even say: "'insert holy scripture here' says that it didn't happen that way so that means evolution is wrong." Or sometimes they move into cosmological concerns (a branch of mostly physics) or they try to play 'moral' grounds or 'life is pointless' grounds. There is really no point in arguing with people who show gross ignorance. However if you write out the specific arguments which you are encountering and having difficultly refuting then I'll try to help you out in your refutations.

EDIT: As well just to point out the theory of Natural Selection is not the only theory to attempt an explanation of evolution but it is by far the most popular and strongest theory.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well you could always just point him to resources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Pengwuino]

I hate arguments like these, give it up. You are obviously not well versed in the field so don't bother. It would be like me saying that the theories behind superconductivity are wrong and some high schooler coming up to me and trying to prove me wrong by doing what you're doing even though his side of the story is right. Now, I really haven't dabbled in condensed matter but still, I am far more educated then said high schooler in the sciences. Whatever my response to this person would be, since the person is not well versed in the field, I could easily dismiss using flimsy arguments that aren't likely to be countered by someone who has no formal training in the field. Hell, I might even (as I assume he does) believe said flimsy arguments which would make it fairly impossible for the other person to make me change my mind.

I mean really, when was the last time you got someone to change their mind on abortion or religion or whether or not the world was flat. You're not going to change his mind. Infact, you might even strengthen his views.

 

[Rob060870]

can a theory ever be proven as fact?

Dear readers. . .
is it possible for ANY theory to be proven?

i believe not,
what do you think?

 

[Evo]

Dear readers. . .
is it possible for ANY theory to be proven?

i believe not,
what do you think?

In the context you mean https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2611504 a scientific theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [7]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[8]

This was explained to you in your thread claiming the theory of evolution is not true.

 

[Moonbear]

dear readers,

i have a friend of mine who just doesn't believe in evolution!. i just find that very hard to believe as i thought the theory of evolution was one of mankinds strongest to date!. the thing is that he is an intelligent man!(he is a chemist for goodness sake!).

Unfortunately, regardless of his intelligence or scientific background in chemistry, it seems that when it comes to biology and evolution, he has checked his scientist badge at the door and instead reverted to relying on a belief system. To be fair, based on your own posts in this thread, it is also very possible you too are relying on a belief system for your own "belief" that evolution is accurate. The reason I say that is that you yourself seem to have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the subject and lack of familiarity with the field of research supporting this theory.

This too often makes for a bad combination when someone who is not well-versed in the literature surrounding evolutionary theory is trying to explain the evidence (of which they only understand a small bite) to someone who is determined not to believe any of it and punch holes into the explanation. And, without a solid foundation of understanding the subject, they WILL find holes...not in the actual theory, but in your explanation of the theory. This only serves to reinforce their disbelief.

It is usually more constructive to address specific questions and misconceptions frequently spread by those who do not believe in evolution to prevent others from being led down the same wrong path, and less constructive to try to explain all of evolutionary theory and convince someone who has already chosen a path of faith over rational understand (faith in the psychological, not religious sense) to change their views.

 

[dx]

A theory can be shown to be in accordance with experience and evidence. That's the only sense in which a theory can be "proven as a fact".

 

[zomgwtf]

So to answer your post now I'll start off by saying 'wikianswer' is not a good source to be citing here on physicsforums.

Besides if you wanted to just ask any of the scientists here on PF if a scientific theory can be proven then they would all tell you the exact same thing: No. Proofs exist in areas such as mathematics and philosophy. What does any of this have to do with what we were discussing earlier?
Absolutely nothing.

Let me draw this out for you in a way which you will, hopefully, understand.

Light. Light is an observed phenomenon. Now, we have various theories of light many of them actually. Does this mean that light is a theory? No, it does not. Light is a word we have given to a phenomenon it has a strict definition which encompasses only that which is directly part of the phenomenon. Anything outside that (using logic/reasoning) will be a theory about light as opposed to the theory of light.
Now what kinda theories are there?
Well we have:
-The old Hellenistic theories based on the '4 elements' they involved the 'light' coming from the eyes outwards. The biggest work of the time I think was by Ptolemy. There was another theory which wasn't accepted at the time which involved light traveling from the Sun as particles.

-Optical theory then developed and changed up the game, light now came from sources. How it traveled was also explained.

- Partical theory developed at the same time as Optical theory, and stated that light was made of energy particles. Newton had also followed up on this idea and wrote about it.

- Wave theory developed pretty much because of Optical theory. Since particle theory could not explain why light refracted traveling into denser materials unless it assumped it sped up because of gravity. Descartes was the first to suggest that light was a wave and behaved similarily to sound waves.

- Electromagnetic Theory continued to give additional observed properties to light and posed that light was a electromagnetic vibration.

- Relativity came along and explained even more about the phenomena.

- Quantum theories came along as well as wave-particle duality theories.

Now there are clearly a plethora of theories that have been developed through the ages about light. Does this imply that light is a theory?

Same goes for evolution, evolution is an observed phenomenon. Theoretical explanations of why it occurs are theories. Some mechanisms of evolution are also observed phenomenon however the connection between these mechanisms and evolution is still a scientific theory.

Now if you had instead stated that this chemist friend of yours is disputing the theories about evolution that's a completely different ball park. To dispute evolution however, no go.

 

[Evo]

I have moved the OP's other thread back into this one.

 

[Rob060870]

why do people say "the theory of evolution" when it is a fact and not a theory?, i have been mistaken sorry.
i didnt know that you couldn't quote from wikki. i am new to this forum and i am just looking for answers.
you are right, i do not have a scientific background and as its so easy to gain Infractions
will be cautious as to reply to any further questions. shame really.
isnt it funny that after all this i actually believe in evolution.
my mistake was to confuse the theory of Natural Selection for evolution . maybe i will evolve a better understanding!

i don't think i will bother talking about evolution to my friend! as many of you rightly say i am NEVER going to change his mind.
thanks again for the input.
Rob060870

 

[Evo]

why do people say the theory of evolution when it is a fact and not a theory?,.

Rob, have you read any of the explanations provided that explain what a scientific theory is?

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

[Char. Limit]

You probably won't evolve a better understanding, but it's likely that you will eventually gain one. I'm still waiting, though, on that better understanding...

 

[magnusrobot12]

amazing that a chemist does not believe in evolution. the simplest example of evolution is viral mutations. i mean, goodness, you cannot get any more simple than that. Look at the influenza season. Also, what about DNA sequence analysis and resulting phylogenic computations?

i agree with the general sentiments on the board, if someone states that they don't believe in evolution, then don't bother trying to convince them because it is clear why they don't believe in evolution (but i am not allowed to say it in fear of being banned). in either case, the chemistry department should fire that person immediately.

 

[Evo]

amazing that a chemist does not believe in evolution. the simplest example of evolution is viral mutations. i mean, goodness, you cannot get any more simple than that. Look at the influenza season. Also, what about DNA sequence analysis and resulting phylogenic computations?

i agree with the general sentiments on the board, if someone states that they don't believe in evolution, then don't bother trying to convince them because it is clear why they don't believe in evolution (but i am not allowed to say it in fear of being banned). in either case, the chemistry department should fire that person immediately.

Fire someone for their beliefs, even if it doesn't interfere with their ability to do their job? That's outrageous.

 

[magnusrobot12]

got emotional at the end. i was making the point of how frustrating it is to try to explain a fact (theory) to a scientist who just dismisses it because of their blindness. why can't you have evolution and "blindness" (again, i am not saying the word that may ban me). He probably believes in the Bohr model. that is ok. right? what a joke.

 

[Evo]

got emotional at the end. i was making the point of how frustrating it is to try to explain a fact (theory) to a scientist who just dismisses it because of their blindness. why can't you have evolution and "blindness" (again, i am not saying the word that may ban me). He probably believes in the Bohr model. that is ok. right? what a joke.

No one has been banned for typing the word god here, unless it was accompanied by religious nonsense or crackpottery.

 

[magnusrobot12]

a chemistry professor who sticks his nose in the air at evolution, does he also think the Earth is 6,000 years old? If so, then how can he teach atomic decay and carbon-dating? that is crackpottery.

 

[Char. Limit]

You know, I have always wondered about atomic decay.

If we keep one atom seperate, we'll never know if it decays a la Schrödinger's Cat, right?

So why don't we just separate our radioactive substances into individual atoms? Then they'd not decay.

 

[Evo]

a chemistry professor who sticks his nose in the air at evolution, does he also think the Earth is 6,000 years old? If so, then how can he teach atomic decay and carbon-dating? that is crackpottery.

Well, we don't even know if there really is any chemistry professor, the OP could have made it up for sake of argument.

I do know that there is a young Earth creationist that is a noted scientist that writes factual papers on geological specimens that are millions of years old. On one hand, he publishes the scientific findings, but doesn't believe it from his religious viewpoint. We've discussed him before. As long as what he publishes is accurate, it doesn't matter that he doesn't believe it himself. Don't ask me how someone can do that.

 

[magnusrobot12]

OK, thank you.

 

[ThomasEdison]

This thread would be better in Sociology and titled "Cognitive Dissonance."

 

[BoomBoom]

what is the best argument for evolution you can come up with?

My personal favorite is human chromosome 2 which is quite obviously the result of a merger event of 2 ancient primate chromosomes and is the reason apes have one more chromosome pair than we do. Chromosome 2 also contains a double set of telomeric regions (with one in the middle) as well as two centromeric regions...a smoking gun in my opinion.

 

[magnusrobot12]

The problem BoomBoom is that folks who do not believe in evolution will say that God wanted chimps to have 2 fragments of chromosome 2 (a and b) because that is what He wanted.

 

[zomgwtf]

The problem BoomBoom is that folks who do not believe in evolution will say that God wanted chimps to have 2 fragments of chromosome 2 (a and b) because that is what He wanted.

The problem is bigger because you can't directly show the evidence to a person. (well most people can't do this.)

As well as good an example it is for evolution it would be tedious to explain fully to a person with limited to no understanding. (I assume this since it's the only way I can see a person rejecting evolution.) I think the best examples of evolution are larger or 'everyday' things which everyone can freely observe.

 

[pulsar8472]

Dear friend of friend,

What your friend is telling you is that because of his world view he can not accept evolution. This situation is not limited to religious followers, there are atheists as well as other scientist who can not believe in evolution.

All you can really do is present the evidence both modern and ancient, but it's likely he can not see it. Checkmating him would be like trying to checkmate a priest on his belief in god.

If his beliefs are so strong that evolution is wrong, and something ever did convince him, then he really wouldn't be the same person anymore.

 

[zomgwtf]

If his beliefs are so strong that evolution is wrong, and something ever did convince him, then he really wouldn't be the same person anymore.

It's more like he'd turn into the person he's pretending to be. Namely, a scientist (chemist).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A theory can be shown to be in accordance with experience and evidence. That's the only sense in which a theory can be "proven as a fact".

Correct. New evidence could falsify an accepted scientific theory. By definition, science does not exclude that possiblity.

 

[ThomasEdison]

Correct. New evidence could falsify an accepted scientific theory. By definition, science does not exclude that possiblity.

While any theory may appear like conjecture to a layman and is often dismissed in this fashion that is irrelevant when talking about evolution because evolution is not one specific theory.

How can I draw a parralel?

Heres one.

Gravity is accepted. Period. There are many theories about gravity.

Even if the current theories about gravity are contested, revised or dismissed ; the existence of gravity will not be overturned.

 

[zomgwtf]

While any theory may appear like conjecture to a layman and is often dismissed in this fashion that is irrelevant when talking about evolution because evolution is not one specific theory.

How can I draw a parralel?

Heres one.

Gravity is accepted. Period. There are many theories about gravity.

Even if the current theories about gravity are contested, revised or dismissed ; the existence of gravity will not be overturned.

That's because gravity and evolution are not theories... you can go back a few posts and I made a comparisson to light. Gravity and evolution are phenomena which necessarily means they have been observed aka exist within the definition given. The causes of the phenomena's existence brings about different deductions etc. which are not based directly off of observation, they are theories.

 

[Flatland]

Dear readers. . .
is it possible for ANY theory to be proven?

i believe not,
what do you think?

All scientific theories are "proven." You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is.

why do people say "the theory of evolution" when it is a fact and not a theory?, i have been mistaken sorry.

Rob060870

why do people say "the theory of gravity" when it is a fact?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just like gravity is both a fact and a theory. Again you have no idea what a scientific theory is.

 

[Rob060870]

Thanks for explaining all of those points to me everyone. I have been mistaken and in future i Will Just ask the question rather than give my misinformed opinion.i Will print off the answers you all have kindly given me and hopefully i can convince my friend! . . I won't hold my breath though!. All the best.

 

[zomgwtf]

All scientific theories are "proven." You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is.

How about instead of posting next time you read through the numberous posts that came before yours which explain this properly instead of spreading misinformation followed by attacking the questioner.

 

[Rob060870]

amazing that a chemist does not believe in evolution. the simplest example of evolution is viral mutations. i mean, goodness, you cannot get any more simple than that. Look at the influenza season. Also, what about DNA sequence analysis and resulting phylogenic computations?

i agree with the general sentiments on the board, if someone states that they don't believe in evolution, then don't bother trying to convince them because it is clear why they don't believe in evolution (but i am not allowed to say it in fear of being banned). in either case, the chemistry department should fire that person immediately.

my friend actually runs the chemist! so i don't see him being sacked any time soon, i thought about asking him. . . do you also believe that the Earth is flat? but i thought better of it!(i didnt want to lose a friend ).
i don't remember him saying why he didnt believe in it. i think i know what your referring to(being banned).
i don't see my friend too often as i live some distance from him but when i do get the chance i will be better armed to try and change his oppinion, i will ask him why he doesn't believe and post his answer on here.
thanks.

 

[Monique]

We're not interested in attacking people based on their believes, so you really do not need to post his reply to this forum. The rules are clear: "Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated."