jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (5 posts)

What are the most common arguments against evolution by natural selection

  1. TFScientist profile image88
    TFScientistposted 6 years ago

    What are the most common arguments against evolution by natural selection

    We have all heard the controversy that exists between the scientific and (primarily) religious communities over the origin of species. Which arguments do you hear most often? Which do you find most difficult to overcome/which do you think are most persuasive? Which argument do you find most annoying?

  2. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 6 years ago

    I believe the most common argument against Darwin in particular is: If we evolved from apes why are there still apes around today? Other questions come into play if one believes there is life on other planets. If so, are these beings also the result of evolution?

    In all honesty I have just as much problem with the Adam & Eve story in "The Garden of Eden" and the Noah's Ark story (putting 2 of everything on the boat...) Clearly in both scenarios there was rampant incest to repopulate the earth.

    I don't think it's possible to determine for certain how the earth came to be or how we were created. Personally I'm kind of fond of "The Other Planet" theory. Our original planet was destroyed and our ancestors traveled through space and landed on earth where they decided to began anew. 
    In the end, Does it really matter? We deal with circumstances the way we find them.

  3. scottcgruber profile image80
    scottcgruberposted 6 years ago

    Good question!

    The one I hear the most, and perhaps the most annoying, is the perennial favorite "if man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" I usually respond with "if Mexicans came from Spain, why are there still Spaniards?"

    The more interesting are the ones thst delve into specific examples of "design" such as the eye or the bird wing or bat sonar or the bacterial flagellum, and declare that these could not possibly have evolved by natural processes. Since I've started hubbing, I find these to be a great writing opportunity - I'm working on a hub about bat echolocation that I hope to publish tomorrow for Darwin Day.

    The information theory questions are pretty popular - how can mutations create information/beneficial structures/etc.

    Then there are the ones based in taxonomy - how can evolution produce new "kinds," or why has evolution never produced a crocoduck (which it has).

    Also infuriating are the AIG/CI arguments that use real science and false dichotomies to argue for a young Earth. For example, when scientists find fossilized protein residues in a dinosaur skeleton, the creationists argue that protein can't possibly last millions of years, therefore dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old.

    Perhaps most annoying are the ones that are based heavily in anthropic principles. The Comfort/Cameron banana argument is one of these - evolution could not have produced the banana, which was obviously designed by an intelligent designer to fit human hands. (There's a grain of truth to this one, as the modern banana is a product of intelligent design by human farmers by hybridization and selective grafting. The wild banana is an unpalatable seed-pod)

    That's just a small sample - haven't even delved into the second law of thermodynamics or abiogenesis yet. There's just too much antiscience to list them all.

  4. profile image0
    Infinite712posted 6 years ago

    I've never heard any persuasive arguments against evolution. The most common is definitely "if man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys". Which shows that they don't know anything about evolution.

  5. Austinstar profile image88
    Austinstarposted 6 years ago

    How to explain evolution to someone who believes that 'God did it'. What arguments are used to disprove evolution? Does man come from apes? Did Intelligent design (God) create the universe? Humans used to have tails, now they don't. The DNA of humans discarded that evolutionary step because humans do not need tails. Monkeys still need their tails and therefore they kept the DNA code for monkey tails. Can you imagine the enormous eternity of time that it took for the universe to do this? read more

 
working