jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (18 posts)

Are there holes in theory of evolution?

  1. Terrex profile image81
    Terrexposted 2 years ago

    Are there holes in theory of evolution?

    Creationism is regarded by sceptics as a fanciful theory which does not stand up to scrutiny.
    The alternatives they offer seem credible on the surface, but are there problems with them, too?


  2. Titen-Sxull profile image87
    Titen-Sxullposted 2 years ago

    It depends on what you mean by holes. If you mean there are still unexplained aspects than yes, there are elements of evolution that are still being discovered and updated. But that's how science works.

    Also I should point out the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. Theories are big ideas in science, evolutionary theory is an entire field of study with many facts associated with it, many lines of evidence, and many practical applications, etc.

    Taken by itself as a fact evolution itself has been directly observed in the wild and in laboratory conditions - it is a demonstrable fact of biology that genetic changes in populations emerge and give rise to new species.

    Furthermore genetics proves that all life on Earth is genetically related, meaning we share a common ancestor with all other lifeforms. There is simply no way around this for creationists, scientists understand DNA so well that we actually convict murderers based on DNA evidence AND let people who are on death row be exonerated and set free based on DNA.

    Scientists continue to make discoveries and refine their understanding of how organisms are related, when they diverged, etc.

    Evolution is all around us every day, especially when we eat. Did you know that cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower are all derivatives of the same plant? They are all subspecies that human beings caused to evolve by applying artificial selection pressure. In the wild this process is called natural selection and generally works more slowly than it does when humans forcibly apply it through selective breeding. If evolution were not a fact than artificial selection simply would not work.

    Evolution has also completely changed the way we approach medicine. The flu virus mutates every year into a new strain and in order to keep up with evolution scientists must develop a new vaccine. Some bacteria have built up an immunity to antibiotic drugs and anti-bacterial soap.

    So while there are mysteries about evolution left to be solved the fundamental idea, that populations change over time genetically and this gives rise to new species, is an observable verified fact. And it is also a fact that human beings share ancestry with all other lifeforms.

    1. Austinstar profile image87
      Austinstarposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The science is there. Evolution is almost fully explained now. Even the pope admits that his god used evolution as a tool of creating things. When is this idea of instant man from clay going to end?

    2. Matthew RN profile image80
      Matthew RNposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Understand that creating subspecies and genetic mutations are not evolution by definition.  Evolution is one species becoming another species, is that happening today?, I did not see examples here.

    3. Titen-Sxull profile image87
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Matthew, you can look all of that up online. There is Google and there is Google Scholar which links to actual articles from actual academics and scientists. Research speciation for yourself, it has been observed numerous times.

    4. Matthew RN profile image80
      Matthew RNposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution for today: Do not see any hybrid animals.  Also, broccoli and cauliflower creating a new vegetable is not evolution.  Evolution is evolving to a higher  species, do you have any other examples of Evolution?

    5. Titen-Sxull profile image87
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is not evolving to a "higher species". I recommend gaining at least a middle school level understanding of a subject before discussing it. Educate yourself to avoid embarrassing yourself further Matt.

    6. Matthew RN profile image80
      Matthew RNposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is evolving from species to another species that is Darwin’s theory.  Still, I see no examples from this post of evolution.  Mutations are not evolution, the bacteria is not turning into a paramecium.  A frog to a newt, that is evolution.

    7. Titen-Sxull profile image87
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Again you're making yourself look ignorant. Take the time to research what evolution actually is so you don't make a total ass of yourself. Evolution has nothing to do with a frog turning into a newt.

    8. Matthew RN profile image80
      Matthew RNposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is evolving from species to species (have you read Darwin’s theory). I say that because vegetable to vegetable, not even a valid example.   Mutations in bacteria (bacteria still the same species), poor again.  Give me a valid example please

    9. Titen-Sxull profile image87
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Vegetables are not a species. That's elementary school level biology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_rank

      An example of evolution: whales evolved from earlier land mammals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

    10. Matthew RN profile image80
      Matthew RNposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The vegetable example you gave is not an example of evolution (both are the same species: Brassica oleracea). We need different species to be evolution.  Why are fossils of whales constant, no deviations?  Bacteria mutations, not even an example.

    11. Titen-Sxull profile image87
      Titen-Sxullposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it counts as evolution even if it's within the same species. Whale fossils are not constant, in fact the evolution of whales from land mammals is well documented in the fossil record.

    12. Matthew RN profile image80
      Matthew RNposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Basically your examples show natural selection, selecting information (genes) that are already there.  Now you told me evolution is happening here. Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution, does it, that is giving it too much power.

  3. mczarnec profile image84
    mczarnecposted 2 years ago

    Of course there are holes in the theory!  We are still find clues that God left for us. 

    Think of it this way, there is scientific evidence that support the stories of creation.  They tell us that God did not simply snap his fingers and stuff happened.  There is a reason he rested on the seventh day.  Man five to six thousand years ago did not have the ability to look beyond what he knew day to day.  These stories were told in a way they understood.  Today, we have developed tools to help us see beyond that.  We use them and see more of the beauty of how God created. 

    As I said we have not found everything that God has left, on earth or in the universe. We are discovering a little at a time.  We will never know the full glory of the Lord, but I for one am amazed every time we find another piece.

  4. M. T. Dremer profile image95
    M. T. Dremerposted 2 years ago

    I've been told analogies are a weak argument, but imagine a gaping chasm. On one side of that chasm you see an old bridge. It's got a lot of cracks and missing pieces, but you can tell that it is a bridge. On the other side of the chasm is an old man. He points to the gap with no bridge and tells you there is a bridge there. You don't see the bridge he's talking about, but he insists that it's there. Which one would you cross?

    Evolution is the bridge we can see, even though it's not 100% complete.

    The open chasm, with the old man telling us there is a bridge, is creationism.

  5. junkseller profile image84
    junksellerposted 2 years ago

    A theory is, pretty much by definition, a thing with holes. Science isn't in the business of absolute truths. It is in the business of trying to explain phenomenon, testing that explanation and over time making the explanation better. The key element of a scientific theory is testability, which makes creationism not a theory at all. There is nothing testable. there is nothing that is even MEANT to be tested. You either believe it or you don't. That is an issue of faith, not science.

    Not all theories are equal. Think of it like building a house. A nascent theory is like drawing up a blueprint, while a robust theory is like a nearly completed house. Evolution is fairly robust.

  6. Matthew RN profile image80
    Matthew RNposted 2 years ago

    My goal here is to only prove evolution is not fact and has many things people cannot account for.  First, evolution states life moves from one species to the next.  I said species, that would mean a fish could change into a frog or an ape to man.  It is not seen here.  If we are scientists, then science needs to be tested and retested and seen.  Fish growing arms, birds becoming mammals, that is not seen.  Keep in mind, I am only proving Evolution is incorrect, not preaching.  Creating sub species, well that by definition is within species so it cannot be evolution.      We see genetic mutations, but that is not switching species either. 
        Look at the Miller-Urey experiment.  They were successful in creating amino acids, but the probability that those amino acids form to become proteins and then to one living cell, 1 x 10-40,000.  That is a fraction of 1 in 10 to the 40000 degree.  That does not mean one in 40000 chance that means 1 in 10 to the 40000 degree.   They created amino acids in a lab, but no life of any kind. 
        Let us dig deeper with probability, notice that a human’s blood pH is very specific, so that just happened by chance.  How is the earth just far enough away not to burn all up, but close enough to sustain life?  Those things just happened by chance? 
        They proved that all humans came from one source, but did not prove all life came from one cell.  If we have all genetic material of trees or star fish then we could regenerate body parts and have the ability to take energy from the sun as trees do.  The human genome has been mapped, but no mention of tree DNA inside us.  All genetic life is made up of amino acids, but that specific aspect does not mean life.  That would be like saying all rocks are the same and a diamond is just as good as a sand stone. 
    I hope this helps.