Arguments against evolution?
回答 (18)
2016-07-13 2:01 am
There are certain things like the Cambrian explosion, abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record, living fossils, extreme convergent evolution, the limits to artificial selection, nanotechnology in the cell, the amazing requirements of changing from single celled life to true multicellular life, the difficulty of evolution producing features that require multiple mutations before gaining a benefit, etc. that cause us to find Darwinian evolution unlikely.
2016-07-10 8:56 pm
I accept that evolution is real. No one has offered any valid argument against the general theory of evolution, and most creationist attempts fail on logical, factual, and philosophical grounds. The ones that don't fail are simply meaningless.
2016-07-11 1:09 am
There are no valid falsifications of the theory of evolution supported by evidence. Evolution is an established fact.
2016-07-11 12:32 pm
Which "evolution"?
a) a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
b) all living things are ascended from a universal common ancestorr which arose naturally from non-living matter.
a) is almost universally accepted as true and has plenty of evidence.
b) is a hypothesis with shaky supporting evidence and lots of problems.
[edit] @reddfrog (comments), if you read "Why Evolution is True" you will find that J Coyne includes abiogenesis in his definition when he says "perhaps a self replicating molecule", however if you want to disagree with Jerry Coyne you're probably on firm ground.
We have life and we have non-life. We have no evidence of abiogenesis. If you assert that it is a fact you do so on the basis of faith, not science; but I respect your religious beliefs.
a) a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
b) all living things are ascended from a universal common ancestorr which arose naturally from non-living matter.
a) is almost universally accepted as true and has plenty of evidence.
b) is a hypothesis with shaky supporting evidence and lots of problems.
[edit] @reddfrog (comments), if you read "Why Evolution is True" you will find that J Coyne includes abiogenesis in his definition when he says "perhaps a self replicating molecule", however if you want to disagree with Jerry Coyne you're probably on firm ground.
We have life and we have non-life. We have no evidence of abiogenesis. If you assert that it is a fact you do so on the basis of faith, not science; but I respect your religious beliefs.
2016-07-11 4:38 am
I do not know any scientific argument against evolution. If you want to argue against evolution use metaphysics. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with assumptions that we make in our inquiries about the universe. Science, like any other method of inquiry, makes assumptions that it cannot prove. Determine what those assumptions are and argue against them.
For example; if someone refers to a fossil that in his opinion proves evolution then ask how does he know that this fossil was not created as a fossil 6000 years ago.
For example; if someone refers to a fossil that in his opinion proves evolution then ask how does he know that this fossil was not created as a fossil 6000 years ago.
2016-07-12 6:52 pm
Anyone who tells you evolution is a proven fact is a liar. My biggest argument against it is this word... order. According to evolution it was some form of chaos that created everything. But there is so much natural order in the world! Chaos does NOT create order
2016-07-10 9:47 pm
o I didn't observe the goo-to-you scenario happening, myself
That's about it. We have plenty of evidence that supports evolution, and I have to trust that the people who analyzed things did a good job.
That's about it. We have plenty of evidence that supports evolution, and I have to trust that the people who analyzed things did a good job.
2016-07-14 12:33 am
For me, the thing I find hardest to swallow is the idea of "beneficial mutations". We are all familliar with genetic mutations of course, you can see them in the street every day: e.g. Downs' syndrome, albinism, clubfoot, and of course cancer. None of thes seem especially beneficial and I have never heard of one that did. The whole concept of "beneficial mutations seems to be a figment of evolutionary theory whihc has been invented simply to try and come up with some explanation how it works. That is not to say I don't believe in evolution as such: there seems to be plenty of evidence for it, but I think evoutionary theorists may be wrong about the mechanism by which it happens. DNA is an incredibly complex mechanism, and to suggest that it can be improved by random malfunctions - in effect by throwing a monkey wrench into it - stretches my faith a bit further than it can go.
2016-07-13 1:50 am
My opinion is that nowadays scientists still could not find any ways to create a human being and they can explain the principle,structure and function only of stem cells, D.N.A, and chromosome etc.;but not the spiritual life of the human being.
Yip
Yip
2016-07-11 2:27 am
A good argument against evolution might be the structure of the aortas of various families of mammals. That is one creationist argument I do not know how to debunk. There are countless others I know are total ****.
收錄日期: 2021-05-01 14:20:56
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160710120155AAsFfPE