It seems that anyone arguing against evolution is fighting an uphill battle. Evolution seems consistent with all of the evidence, and doesn’t contradict it. And it is a valid theory because it’s falsifiable. We don’t seem to find any fossils outside of the sequence predicted by biologists who base their predictions on evolution. If they did, that would be an example of evidence that contradicts evolution.
I’m interested in hearing from experts in biology or other applicable sciences who could list some other contradictory evidence that we would expect to find if evolution didn’t actually occur.
The primary factoid that I recall off-hand as “evidence” against evolution is that evolution is the result of genetic mutations–and the overwhelming percentage of genetic mutations are negative, not positive.
So, how did anything ever even get started, when chances are, if anything happens, it’ll be something bad.
I think that the problem of negative mutations is neatly considered and explained by natural selection. Negative mutations are quickly removed from the gene pool by natural selection, and positive mutations are preserved and eventually become predominant. The positive mutations are the only one that contribute to the evolutionary change of a species.
IMHO, this usually isn’t considered a problem by people who understand neo-Darwinism, but it is often used by deniers with just a casual acquaintance with the theory.
There must be some evidence that evolution deniers can come up with that isn’t explained or even predicted by evolution.
This is not a creationist argument or proof. I once expressed a skepticism about evolution in another thread, and got jumped on, expected to showe conclusive proof against evolution. So I’m saying from the start that I do not know enough about evolution or related scientific fields to debate the issue. THIS IS A QUESTION.
Has anyone ever actually made some estimate of the total number of mutations that would have to have taken place since the beginning of life until today, in order for evolution to have produced the life forms that are now present? This could than be compared to the number of positive mutations that are currently observed to be taking place.
John, that dosen’t coun’t. That argumeent only works if you go on for 7000 words and then anounce that your proof is too long and you will post it tomorrow.
Of course, once you have done that you are 100% correct.
As it happens, the evidence against evolution is on page 49 of the first edition of “Finnegan’s Wake.” I think it’s, like, an acrostic or something.
Izzy: I don’t know if anyone has or hasn’t, but it seems like a rather Herculean task that would have to proceed from an awful lot of (possibly untrue) assumptions. Just off the top of my head:
A valid, absolute estimate of the time the earliest organisms appeared.
Whether the mutation rate is constant, or can be altered by geophysical and atmospheric events.
Guessing beforehand whether a mutation is positive, negative or neutral. IMO, a mutation is only negative if it prevents an individual organism from reproducing. If it doesn’t, it is neutral. If it helps an organism reproduce, it is positive.
I think making such an estimate at all begs the question. How many mutations between Australopithecus afarensis and Homo sapiens? I don’t know–can some of them happen simultaneously, or do they have to happen in series? If you make an inaccurate estimate to begin with, it doesn’t matter what you compare it to.
How do extinct forms play into the equation?
I guess we can consider those my corrollary questions to your question.
John Corrado: (holding baseball bat behind back) C’mere, you . . .
I’m not even sure how one would go about this. I mean, a mutation could be a teensy-weensy one, or a significant one. And some mutations may have been good at one time, but as time went on, became a disadvantage. And adding to that we only have the fossil record for our knowledge of different animals in the past. Until we know much, much more about the history of life on this planet and about how evolution works, I don’t think scientists could even guess this accurately give or take several orders of magnitude.
That said, though, I believe that there have been experiments in which scientists have counted the number of generations it takes for bacteria to do certain things, like become more sensitive to light or what have you. I don’t have a cite for that, however. It just seems that counting generations would be a natural thing to do.
That is an interesting question, and is undoubtedly a very high number. However, we should keep in mind that many of those mutations occurred simultaneously, and that many times, evolution did not have to reinvent the wheel for every single species. For example, the mutations that led to the human eye are (if I understand correctly) the same ones that led to a cow’s eye or an elephant’s eye, since our common ancestor had already developed the eye.
However, the extraordinary unlikelihood that a given mutation will be beneficial does bug me, too. Putting Izzy’s question in more precise terms, can we get an estimate of the fraction of mutations that are NOT either lethal or silent? Take this as an absolute maximum of mutations that may be beneficial (this is certain to be a gross overestimate, but allows us to avoid the issue of what is or isn’t beneficial, which depends on the specific context).
Given this number and the overall rate of mutations, which is at least roughly known for many species, we can propose an absolute maximum rate of beneficial mutations. If this rate is insufficient to explain the rate of change seen in the fossil record, that would be a serious challenge to evolution.
Can anyone give a cite where something like this has been done?
I suggest reading Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. It’s basic premise is that the evolutionary process is not as unlikely as we may suspect. The most fascinating chapter (to me at least) was how something as complicated as the eye could come about from evolution after relatively few generations (in a geologic time scale sense).
Dawkins has argued that micromutations have a 50/50 chance of improving the fitness of its recipient. Obviously a macromutation will hurtle a creature far off of it’s “island of survivability” in genetic space, but a small one is just as likely to move it uphill as downhill, isn’t it?
Whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental depends entirely on where and when it happens. Being born without eyes and no skin pigment is detrimental unless you’re a cave fish or amphibian. This is just one small example.
Izzy This is fairly simple. Figure out how many DNA bits there are in a human. Each bit has four possible values. Imagine them as blocks. Start with a pile of none, and add a random block. Keep adding random blocks or changing the ones that you have for the required number of steps to get the length. Then figure on a few more just to get the rest right. Remember too that 96% of our DNA is junk to begin with so don’t count that. And, you have to account for the fact that multiple mutations can happen at the same time.
As for evidence, though I don’t see why Genesis should be taken litterally as opposed to allegorically, with some bedtime stories throw in for good measure. However, the plain arguement is here is a book that dates back so far as for man to have written down that creation happened right after it happened. So why should we not believe this oral/written tradition? We weren’t there, right?
This may be simplistic, but I’ve heard of many people being born with genetic defects, and none with genetic enhancements.
In any event, this hypothesis sounds easily testable, what with scientists observing and studying organisms undergoing mutations, as mentioned by Necros.
