The flaws of evolution

[Aphex_Twin]

All right, WillJ, you're on.

Evolution is the best theory to explain the apparition and behaviour of life we have at present moment. It is however, like all models flawed, but, as we don't have any better alternative, we have to accept it.

I have here 3 arguments brought up by creationists that may disproove evolution alltogether, lest show that there are some inconsistencies. The first two can be easily refuted, the third, a bit harder.

First: (A more theological argument) Such complexity like that encountered in biology couldn't possible have occured without an "architect" having designed it.

Second: (Social creatures)
Creatures such as bees or ants downright defy evolution. How can members of a society of creatures give up breeding and instead dedicate their life to the hive/ant-hill/... ? Shouldn't there be "survival of the fittest", and have all members of the hive compete for breeding?

Third: (Genetics)
Genetic mutations don't occur that frequently. The DNA molecule is quite stable. For one creature to "evolve" into another it would have to have several members of the species develop the same mutation over the same period of time. If just one member does, then the mutation will have a 50-50 chance of it being passed to the first off-springs, and they would have a 25-75 chance of passing it along, their off-spring a 12.5-87.5 chance to do the same. The "defect" eventually diffuses through the gene-pool of the species.


For those who have additional counter-arguments, please share them with us.

 

[Inter4]

Finally..I find a non evolutionist thread.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
All right, WillJ, you're on.

Ooh, goodie!

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
First: (A more theological argument) Such complexity like that encountered in biology couldn't possible have occured without an "architect" having designed it.

Yay, isn't that special. Unfortunately, that doesn't have anything to do with evolution. An architect could have designed the world, and let it evolve. He could have even designed how it evolved, but it still evolved.

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Second: (Social creatures)
Creatures such as bees or ants downright defy evolution. How can members of a society of creatures give up breeding and instead dedicate their life to the hive/ant-hill/... ? Shouldn't there be "survival of the fittest", and have all members of the hive compete for breeding?

Huh? Doesn't the hive/ant-hill help them survive? "Survive," even for the species, doesn't necessarily mean "breed."

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Third: (Genetics)
Genetic mutations don't occur that frequently. The DNA molecule is quite stable. For one creature to "evolve" into another it would have to have several members of the species develop the same mutation over the same period of time. If just one member does, then the mutation will have a 50-50 chance of it being passed to the first off-springs, and they would have a 25-75 chance of passing it along, their off-spring a 12.5-87.5 chance to do the same. The "defect" eventually diffuses through the gene-pool of the species.

Yes, but the ones that do have mutations (for the good) are more likely to survive and pass it on, moreso than the "bad" genes. Albeit it's not going to do much in a short amount of time, but in a few billion years things will probably have started to get going.

I think you misunderstood what I said, AT. I meant that the very, very basic theory of natural selection doesn't have any notable flaws, that I know of at least. Evolution has even been seen first-hand. Now, when you try to get a little more detailed and say that, for example, how humans and apes have a common ancestor, there is obviously room for flaws. I'm pretty sure that we know that organisms evolve, just not how.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Originally posted by WillJ

I'm pretty sure that we know that organisms evolve, just not how.

It's the very details I'm talking about. Untill we find them we won't be sure to say evolution actually works. How did, for instance, snakes develop a "third eye" that can see in infra-red. Quite a radical improovement, that couldn't have been achieved in slow, incremental steps throughout millions of years. What's the good of having an organ that will only work after 1 million years of "refinement"? Just drag it along and see what happends?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
First: (A more theological argument) Such complexity like that encountered in biology couldn't possible have occured without an "architect" having designed it.

I think that considering the billions of years passed and the huge number of creatures to ever exist, makes it more than possible.

Second: (Social creatures)
Creatures such as bees or ants downright defy evolution. How can members of a society of creatures give up breeding and instead dedicate their life to the hive/ant-hill/... ? Shouldn't there be "survival of the fittest", and have all members of the hive compete for breeding?

It does not defy evolution - the evolved creatures are those who breed. The others are just their extensions.

Third: (Genetics)
Genetic mutations don't occur that frequently. The DNA molecule is quite stable. For one creature to "evolve" into another it would have to have several members of the species develop the same mutation over the same period of time. If just one member does, then the mutation will have a 50-50 chance of it being passed to the first off-springs, and they would have a 25-75 chance of passing it along, their off-spring a 12.5-87.5 chance to do the same. The "defect" eventually diffuses through the gene-pool of the species.

This isn't accurate - first, DNA mutations occur at every birth and with every creatues. Secondly, don't forget wild animals fight in order to breed - if the mutation makes the creature stronger it'll bread several times, and other won't. Then each of his decendents will have a 50% chance of carrying it on and they too will be better and therefore breed more.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
It's the very details I'm talking about. Untill we find them we won't be sure to say evolution actually works. How did, for instance, snakes develop a "third eye" that can see in infra-red. Quite a radical improovement, that couldn't have been achieved in slow, incremental steps throughout millions of years. What's the good of having an organ that will only work after 1 million years of "refinement"?

Seeing infra red could've been evolved slowly. It's very much possible that one of their eyes started seeing different wave lenghs, and a third eye evolved as a need to see in 3D or as a result of breeding with regular snakes.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
It's the very details I'm talking about. Untill we find them we won't be sure to say evolution actually works. How did, for instance, snakes develop a "third eye" that can see in infra-red. Quite a radical improovement, that couldn't have been achieved in slow, incremental steps throughout millions of years. What's the good of having an organ that will only work after 1 million years of "refinement"? Just drag it along and see what happends?

Yes, in that case, evolution has many mysteries/flaws. As G-Man said, it could have still come from evolution. But of course we don't know exactly how (and we probably never will).

I was just thinking of the basic theory of natural selection.

 

[polymath]

I'll have a go as well.

1:
Complexity. We see complex systems in nature all the time. A galaxy is a complex system. A hurricane is a complex system. Complexity is nothing special. No-one suggests that hurricanes need a creator. I think you are driving at organised complexity. But when we look at life on Earth, we see a steady increase in the complexity of organisms from the earliest lifeforms to the later lifeforms. This tends to confirm that evolution is at work. The progression from less to more complex species contradicts creationists.

Intelligent Design is another argument entirely, which derives from irreducible complexity. Nonetheless, no-one suggest that the components are irreducible, just that the complexity is irreducible. I personally feel that this is clutching at straws, but since I'm not an expert on molecular biology I certainly couldn't pass judgement on whether it is correct.

2:
Social creatures working for the common good at their own 'expense'.

What I believe is going on here is not the survival of the creatures themselves but the survival of the ant species, or the ant genes if you will. Viewed this way, it makes sense as WillJ says.

3:
Slow progression of mutations.

Again as Will J says, we are dealing with billions of years. Around 3.8 billion according to current ideas. Don't forget, the dinosaurs died out sixty million years ago. We are talking about unimaginable lengths of time for evolution to take place.

Drifting off-topic into more philosophical realms:
All these questions are welcome. If flaws are pointed out, and proven, this is welcome. We are striving for knowledge, not clinging tenuously to some antiquated belief system. Anything which gains us better understanding is a brilliant thing. If you can point and prove a flaw in evolution, you are only bettering our understanding.

But if you point out any flaw in a religious model, it is ignored and swept under the carpet. Sad, really. But it does prove which is the better model.

 

[nihilistic]

I think WillJ has shown that these arguments (even when true) does not debunk evolution, so my post will comment on how these claims are likely false.

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
First: (A more theological argument) Such complexity like that encountered in biology couldn't possible have occured without an "architect" having designed it.

So evidently that architect, having the capacity create such complex and wondrous objects, must be indeed complex in itself, and thus must be created by some higher architect, and that higher architect must also be created a higher architect, and so on ad infinitum. The claim that our first order architect must transcend matter and time (and thus does not have a creator) is completely laughable, since its existence directly contradicts its proof of existence (complexity argument).

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Second: (Social creatures)
Creatures such as bees or ants downright defy evolution. How can members of a society of creatures give up breeding and instead dedicate their life to the hive/ant-hill/... ? Shouldn't there be "survival of the fittest", and have all members of the hive compete for breeding?

This is another "one cat is black, therefore all cats are black" kind of argumetns that assumes homogenuity. The simple answer is that the hive with the "survival of the fittest" mentality wasn't as efficient as the group that evolved into a cooperative state in gathering food and feeding their young, and eventually died off. This makes sense since the sizes of individual bees and ants are nowhere to be feared. Their only strength is through numbers. Hence, the group that works together more survives better. After that , it's not hard to visualize that the group that works together whose emmbers are more specialized eventually will become more efficient that the ad-hoc group, and so on.

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Third: (Genetics)
Genetic mutations don't occur that frequently. The DNA molecule is quite stable. For one creature to "evolve" into another it would have to have several members of the species develop the same mutation over the same period of time. If just one member does, then the mutation will have a 50-50 chance of it being passed to the first off-springs, and they would have a 25-75 chance of passing it along, their off-spring a 12.5-87.5 chance to do the same. The "defect" eventually diffuses through the gene-pool of the species.

Genetic alterations occur every day. You are made up of billions of cells and trillions of _na acid strands, each having a minute chance of mutating every moment of your life due to radiation or inherent flaws. Your calculations are also completely wrong. For your calculations to be correct, all males and females of a population must have exactly one partner in their lifetime and produce exactly one child. If that is true, then the population of that species will half every generation. It basically assumes the exactly opposite of what Darwin claims: that the specimen with favorable traits will have more chances to mate with other specimens with favorable traits and produce more children that will survive, and thus eventually transcending their genes to the majority of the pool (if not the whole pool).

 

[CamBot]

First: (A more theological argument) Such complexity like that encountered in biology couldn't possible have occured without an "architect" having designed it.

The first thing that pops in my mind when I read something like this is, "compared to what"?

We've never observed whole ecosystems (or galaxies, etc.) evolving into being so we dont have a standard of comparison for how "complex" our own planet is. .

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by nihilistic
Genetic alterations occur every day. You are made up of billions of cells and trillions of _na acid strands, each having a minute chance of mutating every moment of your life due to radiation or inherent flaws. Your calculations are also completely wrong. For your calculations to be correct, all males and females of a population must have exactly one partner in their lifetime and produce exactly one child. If that is true, then the population of that species will half every generation. It basically assumes the exactly opposite of what Darwin claims: that the specimen with favorable traits will have more chances to mate with other specimens with favorable traits and produce more children that will survive, and thus eventually transcending their genes to the majority of the pool (if not the whole pool).

The difference is that most genetic mutiation cause no change in the organism.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by archer_007
The difference is that most genetic mutiation cause no change in the organism.

That demonstrates another common mistake in flawed reasonings: the inability to ascertain the collective value and implications of large quantities of small numbers (or similarly but conversely: small probablities of large counsequences). To a layperson, the quantities one billion, one trillion, one quadrillion, and one googol means pretty much the same thing: a huge, almost immeasurable number. Something that has a one in a billion chance of happening may as well never happen. However, that is not so when the same experiment is done a billion times every day. To conclude that mutations probably did not cause evolutions, you would have to demonstrate mathematically how the chances of genetic mutations happening and the chances of genetic mutations being counsequential taken together can render the tremendous amount of mutations that happen every second negligible. Yes, that means you would have to use math, and not peotic allegories.

If you can prove that conclusively, you deserve a PhD in computational biology.

 

[polymath]

"The first thing that pops in my mind when I read something like this is, "compared to what"?"

CamBot raises an excellent point. With life on this planet, we effectively have a sample of one. One can effectively judge nothing from a sample of one.

 

[Shadylookin]

Acctually the 3 that were mentioned can't really prove anything. this is the killer of the true evolution theor(everythign came from something else) in my mind. if everything had to have come from something else, then what created the first subatomic particle and what created that and what created that. To believe in evolution you have to believe that something was created first therfore killing the everything came from something else (evolution) theory. somewhere down the line something had to have just been there (or had been created by a being perhaps God) to evolve. I believe in a combo of creation and evolution seeing that with evolution come the flaw of something had to of just been there.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
Acctually the 3 that were mentioned can't really prove anything. this is the killer of the true evolution theor(everythign came from something else) in my mind. if everything had to have come from something else, then what created the first subatomic particle and what created that and what created that.

Why must there be a first subatomic particle? Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Why must it have been "created"?

Originally posted by Shadylookin
To believe in evolution you have to believe that something was created first therfore killing the everything came from something else (evolution) theory. somewhere down the line something had to have just been there (or had been created by a being perhaps God) to evolve. I believe in a combo of creation and evolution seeing that with evolution come the flaw of something had to of just been there.

Obviously it does not seem as if life had always existed. However, it is still doubtful whether the first life forms came into existence as an accident or as a purposeful creation. Anyhow, evolution typically does not deal with why life started, but how life evolved.

 

[Shadylookin]

Why must there be a first subatomic particle? Why couldn't the universe have always existed? Why must it have been "created"?

well if it always existed then it isn't evolution, because something was their first created by God or what, something was here first, and that kinda defies the whole evolution thing

 

[dannyevilcat]

Second: (Social creatures)
Creatures such as bees or ants downright defy evolution. How can members of a society of creatures give up breeding and instead dedicate their life to the hive/ant-hill/... ? Shouldn't there be "survival of the fittest", and have all members of the hive compete for breeding?

Interesting article regarding ants and evolution I read: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~jm703496/es-antevln.html

I'll quote one part: "Hamilton then applied his theory of inclusive fitness to Hymenopteran societies. As sterile worker caste members do not reproduce, the only method of transmission of their genome is to support the queen, even if it means personal sacrifice. In this way, workers literally do serve for the good of the colony, and in doing so, provide for the only possible method of transmission of their genome to future generations."

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
well if it always existed then it isn't evolution, because something was their first created by God or what, something was here first, and that kinda defies the whole evolution thing

As nihilistic said, nothing had to be created. It could've just always been there. I've heard a theory that the universe repeats itself - expanding, then shrinking again, then exploding again.

Anyway it has nothing to do with evolution, which is a biological theory.

 

[Sodfather]

Just a quick thought...

It seems the problem with the third "evidence" is that most mutations are so minute that organisms could not have possibly diversified so vastly and quickly.

Well, from what I've read, no one has mentioned this: You take ten different populations of...Lizards. Okay. Lizards. So...Give 'em 10 million years. Each population mutates differently. Eventually, the populations will mix and breed together. Now it gets interesting...Due to "crossing over", or the mixing of chromatids during meiosis, these mutations, which should now be distinct over 10 million years, may all combine into one organism in a few years. Now you have a huge difference from the original lizard. One population may have had very long tails, another glands to hold and produce venom, another with mutated or no legs. Now you almost have a snake.

Now take all the populations in the given area and mix 'em over time...You can reasonably have a snake.

Just something to chew on...

 

[Shadylookin]

well if it was just there then it didn't evolve and then the theory of evolution is very flawed cause everything has to evolve from something else. I'm not trying to get you to believe everythign was made in 6 days, but something had to of been there first and then stuff could evolve from it. the theory of evoltuion in which everything came from something else is false.