You're viewing a single thread.
Hey, OP! Are we allowed to debate some of these problems with the theory, or am I obliged to believe it anyway? These are my top twenty doubts and I'd appreciate if you could resolve some of them for me.
Empirical problems:
- Horizontal Gene Transfer upsets the conceptual "tree of life", i.e. if genetics are not exclusively hereditary then it is impossible to determine a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
- Lack of a viable mechanism for producing the complex and specific information required to render the genetic code functional.
- Failure of the fossil record to find support for Darwinian evolution (punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, etc).
- Rampant examples of convergent evolution indicate extreme improbability.
- Abiogenesis.
- Biogeographical distribution irregularities.
- Inaccurate predictions regarding so-called "junk DNA", vestigial organs and endogenous retroviruses (ERV).
- Epigenetics cannot be reduced to a mechanism, certainly not natural selection.
- "Phenotypic Plasticity" - the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes are no longer 1:1.
- Beneficial mutations are impossibly rare. In almost all cases, mutations are degenerative, as demonstrated by Richard Lenski's bacteria experiment and Molly Burke's fruit fly experiment - both published in Nature.
Philosophical problems:
- Alvin Plantinga's "Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism" illustrates that the combination of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have evolved reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable. This has prompted many ambitious thinkers to suggest that consciousness is an illusion.
- Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (art, music, religion, introspection, homosexuality, etc.)
- Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized.
- Determinism - as implied by evolution theory - is dangerously irrational and hypocritical.
- Democracy is founded on a metaphysical claim which contradicts the tenets of evolution, i.e. "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...".
- Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory.
- Evolution cannot be rationally explained without recourse to vitalist rhetoric, i.e. the "selfish gene".
- All too frequently, critique of evolution theory is dismissed by appealing to vox populi, a disengenuous logical fallacy, or...
- Esotericism - the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory.
- An evolution research experiment cannot be performed except by design.
Not sure if you or op are more annoying. Actually I do, it's you.
Some of these "Philosophical" points are flat out bullshit
-
Homosexuality isn't only present in human behavior and there are plenty of explanations, both on an evolutionary and behavioral standpoints, as to why. My favorite is the Gay Uncle Theory.
-
Who gives a shit? Science is by definition politicized and also by definition it expells myths for obvious reasons
-
Why? Substantiate that claim
-
That is not what democracy is founded on. In democracy all men have equal rights and have the same power to vote and be elected. Even in the US when Locke wrote that people disagreed with it, mostly because they liked owning slaves.
6-7 Substanciate that claim.
-
Skill issue. You can just as easily disprove it with facts.
-
Anyone is allowed to challenge and contribute to our understanding of the world. Just be prepared to have your claims be rigorously tested.
-
Bullshit. It has been observed in natural populations since before we even understood it.
They show a very rudimentary understanding of evolution that doesn't seem to go beyond "survival of the fittest."
Thank you for taking time to address some of my issues. I really appreciate the discourse because it helps me to see what I'm missing and to refine my understanding.
Philosophical problems are more nebulous and difficult than empirical ones, but still important IMO, so long as we presume to be rational creatures.
As for determinism, there are many neuroscientists who vouch for determinism as the natural conclusion of evolution theory. Here's one of the latest professors to say it outright. I could find more references if you like.
I consider this a dangerous notion because it undermines human judicial systems which naturally assume that a person made a choice to act contrary to law. Persons who plead insanity in criminal cases are given lighter sentences for the very reason that they are considered unable to control their actions. It would be absolutely disastrous if that became the norm.
As for the hypocrisy, the fact that determinism can not be rationally affirmed is the greatest problem of determinism. Consider that you think that determinism is true. This would imply that you think that determinism is true not because you have rationally freely chosen determinism after careful argumentation; but simply because you were determined to do so. But if so, what is the reason why anyone should hold to determinism? What is the point in trying to convince anyone else of determinism their beliefs about the truth of determinism have already been determined?
The fact that we have to make choices which determine what random outcome we observe is a problem for any attempt to prove that the universe, or even the self, is deterministic. It throws into question the whole notion of everything having an existing state, upon which determinism is predicated.
I don't have time to reply to all of your counter arguments right now, but I would like to ask what you think about democracy. The "equal rights" that you speak of are not empirical, but metaphysical. We're certainly not equal to each other in terms of body size and shape and economic status and hereditary traits and intelligence and ability or any other metric. So on what grounds can we claim equal rights? It seems to me that evolution theory is wholly incongruent with this system of government...
Either you have a very weird literal definition of "equal rights" or you're being purposely obtuse. Trying to equate flaws in implementation of sociopolitical systems to an imaginary lack scientific rigor in an entirely different field is either intellectually dishonest or a fever rant.
-
Can you please list the reasons you believe in God?
Reasons that person can give. Actual proof however….
- Tree of life is just a way we organize all living things to make things easier for us. And HGT happens only with prokaryotes and certain animals. It really makes things more complicated in some parts of tree of life but that isn't weird, there will always be some thing that we can't fully explain. Just because HGT makes things more complicated doesn't mean that evolution isn't true.
- What are you even talking about here?
- Please explain how fossil record fails to prove evolution.
- Improbability of what? If two organisms live in same or similar environment it isn't odd if they have similar adaptations to same or similar environment even if they aren't closely related. And even if they have similar adaptations that doesn't mean they are same. Wings of bats, birds and insects are all totally different.
- Please explain what is wrong with abiogenesis.
- Be more specific.
- Give at least one example. Who gave inaccurate prediction and for what specific thing?
- If you meant that there are no mechanisms for epigenetics than that's just wrong, there are many of them.
- I don't know anything about this topic so I can't comment on it.
- This is a lie. Most mutations are neutral. And don't ignore the fact that mutation can become beneficial with changes in environment.
- I read more about this argument and it is stupid. What if certain information is neutral in terms of evolution? Us knowing about evolution isn't beneficial for survival but it isn't harmful either. Same goes for creationism, belief in it isn't beneficial nor harmful from evolutionary standpoint. And don't forget that evolutionary processes don't always lead to beneficial changes.
- Those things are similar to neutral mutations. Again, evolution doesn't always lead to beneficial changes.
- Everything is politicized, it doesn't have anything to do with truth.
- How? Please explain.
- Democracy doesn't have anything to do with evolution or any natural science.
- Please explain.
- Please explain.
- Explain how.
- Everyone can critique it but if someone doesn't know anything about the subject, their critique isn't relevant.
- That isn't true.
Why the fuck people did downvote you?!
Many of evolutionists blame those who are against or suspicious about evolution with zealotry but when they come up with real arguments and questions, you become the zealots. You fucking hypocrites
Because it's a gish gallop of mostly thin or discredited arguments, with the strongest at the top to make it look more impressive than it is.
And even the strongest are piss poor and largely discredited by actual science.
"My list of reasons is long" doesn't make any one of those reasons less shoddy than it already is. "I have used scientific words" doesn't hold water either.
Anytime I see a person gish galloping I employ a three strikes basis. I will humor their first argument. Maybe their second but if by their third all is consistently bullshit, I consider them to not be worth anyone's time to "debate" and all further arguments from them in their gish galloping will be disregarded.
Easy way to avoid that? Don't Gish Gallop.
You are far more tolerant than I am. I'd call it a flaw in my approach, but I just found 5 minutes to do a crossword so who's the real winner? /s
I've tagged them as "dishonest debater" because they have chosen to present themselves as such.
I've seen this same list listed before, I'm guessing by the same person. I agree with you. These points have simple explanations.
I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points. It's just not worth the time, especially since it is unlikely the person wants to hear explanations.
The meme is really cringey tho.
I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points
Yes, this is the definition of a gish gallop.
Instead of answering me, it would be much more helpful to come up with an counter argument to mentioned arguments.
We may debate, it wont resolve something. Time will reveal what is needed to be known or to be accepted. So go on have fun, scroll through lemmy.
It is just that, you are lazy so you dont debate and instead you shout out hate. If you are not going to debate and express the opposing side that they are wrong; you are simply an asshole, waste of resources(from my pov of course, it all is relative).
Have a nice day, btw I am an evolutionist(not that it changes sth).
You're an evolutionary biologist or a believer in evolution?
I am the latter and suspect you are too, in which case neither of us should be getting our information on science from an unaccredited stranger on the internet.
Go and listen to Forrest Valkai or someone else who is actually accredited and actively researching those topics.
I'll ignore your ad hominems as, they are just that - evidence of your willingness to engage in fallacy - and add nothing useful to any form of discussion.
Edit: found one while browsing! What are the odds! Post your gallop over there.
I hope you don't mind me butting into your conversation, but you're kinda illustrating one of my philosophical issues with esotericism: the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory.
Although I've only studied up to college level gen Ed biology, I still feel like my concerns with evolution theory are valid. Why must I be dismissed just because I'm not a professional biologist?
The fact that you would present my opinion as something other than what I stated is evidence that you're incapable of an honest conversation.
Do you know what all accredited scientists have in common? That their outputs are available for anyone, even laymen to review, including all the evidence, experimentation and thought work that led them to their conclusions.
But do you know what a layman can't do? Peer review the work of accredited scientists. That's the critical part of the process, because only an accredited scientist has the necessary body of knowledge to be able to meaningfully critique the work of his peers. That's why we use the word peer.
You and I can argue about evolution until we're blue in the face and scientists will keep pushing the envelope regardless of that, producing new, exciting and important discoveries to the benefit of us all.
I am an accredited scientist in my own field. I discuss it with other scientists every day. I teach laymen every day in the hope that they will achieve accreditation too one day.
If this is your goal, I wish you all the best, but you won't achieve it with the primitive thinking of your initial comment. As for layman debate about fields in which neither of us are accredited, I'm not interested given the lackluster quality of your arguments, but stick around long enough and maybe you'll find someone else to roll around in the mud with.
I am capable of honest conversation.
You mentioned new, exciting and important discoveries that benefit us all. Can you please give me an example of one of the benefits of evolution theory? I have not heard of any way in which the theory has been applied. Have we developed novel drugs or technologies as a result of our understanding of evolution theory? Has Evolution Theory facilitated significant improvements in modern medical science?
It seems to me that evolution is not an applied science like physics, chemistry, or biology.