What are some interesting NON-ID, Non-religious counter arguments to the theory of evolution?
482324
One of the arguments would be the lack of fossils for intermediate species. As there are many fish and reptiles fossils discovered, shouldn't there be at least some half fish-half reptile fossils as well?
343469
"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory."\n\n"Intelligent Cause" can ONLY be interpreted as "A Creator."\nHence, it is simply creationism with a fancy new name.  Their claim of "scientific disagreement" is, at best, laughable.\n\nIt's all a big steaming pile of poo....
46862
To dismiss it because of its religious origin would be the same as dropping American history because the founders believed the Bible to be true.\nhttp://www.schneblin.com/studies/pdfs/our_founding_fathers.pdf\n\nYou do not have to bring in the Bible to teach Intelligent Design. You can postulate the possibility as "another view" which can be used as a counterpoint to evolution. You can even postulate the ET theory with aliens dropping off life on an inhabitable planet--anything. But to forbid its teaching is just as much a crime as the Roman Catholic Church condemning Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun.\n\nI will repeat my argument here:\n\nImagine you are a secular scientist. A meteor falls to the earth and you go to examine it. Upon scraping the crust away, you find that it is a ball of pure, mirrored metal. Back at the lab, you find that you can open an airtight access door. Inside are extremely complex gyros, camera systems, computer processors and propulsion system. \nNow what would you, a secular scientist, be your first scientific conclusion? A.) Imagine how many years this must have been in space to evolve? or B.) This is far beyond our abilities to create, it must be from an extraterrestial source!! \nWith only the evidence of a complex machine, with no way of knowing or testing its origin, of course, no contest, B would be the secular scientist's response. \nBecause some people have "faith" that there is life on other planets, they are not catagorized as "religious" so are free from ridicule. But because we see the complexities of the human machine and proclaim "designer" we are thrown out of schools by the judges, demeaned by scores of people on this forum and others, and debased as mindless lemmings.\n\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life. So why do fundamentalists oppose it? Because it is not science, it's theory with very little evidence. I have not even gone into the fact that the human body is an intrigate closed-system with a fantastic balance system, ability to heal, think, imagine, love and reproduce.\nSo, as a scientist who cannot go back in time and document the origin of such complex lifeform, what are you to think?
283955
Proof.  I just read through the above answers, and sorry, but no amount of religious zeal or "because I said so, and I believe, therefore I'm right" is going to convince anyone.  quoting scripture, or saying that because you believe Darwin to be wrong, and have some piece of spam to back you up.  The one sentence that would convince me?\n"This is God, you have some explaining to do!"
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.
621021
its worth looking at. i mean there is some convincing evidence that we did evolve from monkeys and other mammals. of course you can say god created man and leave it at that, but how can we move on and learn new things about the origin of life with that view? So i guess i will keep an open mind to both views
948792
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nBig bang- same thing, 100% fact in science, no evidence of god.\n\nLet me turn your question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
264365
Because we didn't evolve from apes we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with other apes (we are actually a species of ape, but you were probably using the term in the common, not the scientific, sense).  That common ancestor no longer exists.\n\nFor those who say that evolution is false:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to ca
712021
It's not a one to one thing, it has to do with filling niches and common ancestors.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
1137300
And babies prove evolution is a fact since they evolve out of plants, water, animals and rocks.\n\nGiven all the evidence proving God does not exist (and if he does, he's useless), it's a wonder any intelligent person makes the claim that he does exist.\n\nThe opium of the masses, Marx said, and is apparently true.
396045
Intelligent design is the theory that a higher power (God) created the universe. It is the opposite of the evolution theory. One argument for it is that the complexity of life suggests that an intelligent being is necessary to create it. An argument against it is that there is no solid proof that a higher being exists. Some proposed solutions to the shortage in oil include drilling into new reserves, developing more fuel efficient products, and producing alternative energy products. This took a while to type, so I would appreciate your vote as your favorite answer.
1178258
Don't try and use logic on a Theist! They have Faith! Which is impervious to logic, science, evidence, facts, reason et. al.\n\nI really don't understand why Theists even get into arguments about science. They end up making the same lame excuses. Evolution is a theory, macroevolution blah blah. Carbon 14 is faulty, The earth is flat......\n\nThey should stay away from scientific arguments all together...
292900
Er, Einstein doesn't HAVE a theory on evolution. What he does have is a theory of relativity. Go to Darwin for theory on evolution
123134
Of course it's possible. Evolution is merely the mechanism of God's creation.\n\nPersonally, I feel the inherent contradiction is in the opposite direction. Rejection of evolutionary theory reduces God to a deceiver, to a 'God of parts' filling in the gaps in our understanding of creation, rather than underpinning it in it's entirety, it also rejects one of the greatest of God's gifts, the faculty of pure reason.\n\nPeople are, of course, welcome to their opinion, but I feel that the belief that God would create the universe in seven days, ten thousand years ago and then fix it in such a manner as to give all the impressions to the contrary is close to blasphemy
17875
First, note that evolution and the existence of god are NOT mutually exclusive; evolution could be a fact (and it is) but could have been "launched" by a god and left to run, rather like a computer program.\n\nHowever, if there IS no god, we are left to our own devices to devise a morality.  One possibility would be to designate as "immoral" any actions that cannot be performed by everyone and still keep a functioning society.  That is, if you shoot me, and he shoots you, and she shoots him, etc., eventually there will be no one left and the species will die out.
861286
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, in a nutshell:\n\nThere are three observations about life\n1) Variation: Individuals of a species are not all identical.  \n2) Competition: More individuals are born than can possibly survive to reproduce.  \n3) Inheritance: Individuals pass on traits to their offspring.  \nGiven these three things, those individuals in a species that have traits that help them survive better and produce more offspring, will pass those very traits on to those offspring.  So in this way, beneficial traits become more frequent a population, and produce an overall change in the species over time.  \n\nThat's it.\n\nAs for the creation of new species:  If two subpopulations of a species get separated for long enough, then they will change in separate directions, and will eventually lose the ability to interbreed, resulting in (now) two separate species that will continue to change (evolve) in different directions.\n\nThe catchphrase "survival of the fittest" summarizes this idea ... but use it with caution.  It's not just about "surviving" but "surviving to reproduce."  For example, a peacock's tail doesn't really help him "survive" better ... in fact it probably makes him an easier prey for predators ... but it does attract the ladies.  So it makes those individuals with the flashiest tail more "fit" then their homelier cousins.\n\n-------------- A warning about 'tiffany g's answer ---------------\n\nBe careful with answers like 'tiffany g' who copy-paste web pages instead of giving you a link to them, and without giving you the source, so you can check it out.  She is copying from the web-site allaboutscience.org, a thinly disguised Christian/Creationist site.  \n\nMy objection is not with people presenting the Creationist side ... but rather the attempt to hide that fact.  For example, it is deliberately misleading for a site to call itself "allaboutscience.org" when it does not address science topics in general, but only topics like the Big Bang, Evolution, and evidence for the existence of Jesus.  (Watch out for "allaboutphilosophy.org" as well.)\n\nAs a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty, the citation/page finishes with Darwin's famous quote about the eye ... famous because it is always quoted out of context and omits Darwin's very next sentence.  Darwin did indeed write that the evolution of the eye "seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."  (Note the word "seems".)  But then Darwin continues ... "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."  (See second source, Darwin, Ch. 6.)\n\nIn other words, Darwin immediately refutes the "irreducible complexity" argument, by pointing out that all we need to do is show that the eye can come about through small, incremental changes that each confers a small advantage, no matter how small.  Every single case of "irreducible complexity" yet offered by Creationists has always been shown (usually quite easily) to be fully "reducible."\n\nCreationists love to quote out-of-context from Darwin's Chapter 6, because this is the chapter where Darwin considers possible objections or "difficulties" with the theory, and then refutes them. The Creationists love to quote Darwin's own-words description of the "difficulty", but then omit his
249723
A good place to start is by clarifying the difference between the _fact_ of evolution (= change in biological beings) and the _theory_ of evolution (= a body of scientific hypotheses). \nI recommend you this short but informative essay:\nLaurence Moran. Evolution is a fact and a theory\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html\n\nAnd in fact, the entire site\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org is very informative. \nAnother good site is Evolution 101 from Berkeley:\nhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml\n\nGood luck with your paper :-)