Evolution - Where are the Cracks?

[Paul H]

What are the scientific ‘cracks’ in the theory of Evolution?

 

Personally, I think that Evolution is the biggest idea in History. It’s Big. But, my natural Contrarian nature wonders... What are the scientific ‘cracks’ in the theory of Evolution? At, this, time.

 

Honest question. About the biggest question.

 

 

 

(Please, no science cheer-leaders, and no relgious zealots (either))

[Dov Henis]

scientific ‘cracks’ in the theory of Evolution?

.... biggest idea in History....

 

- Not any single idea is the biggest idea in History. All ideas itertwine to constitute together the body of human comprehension.

 

- There is no crack in Darwin's evolution comprehension. It was a great illumination at its human history time. However, today there is a further comprehension of the fractal nature of the universe so that the evolution of life is realized to be a small local component of the Cosmic evolution, as I wrote elsewhere:

 

" Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems' evolutions are intertwined. This holds for the universe composition and for its processes, for its energy forms and mass constituents and also for the very rare bubbles of energy which we call Earth Life."

 

I think,

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

Try here:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/search.php

 

 

Search "evolution" and you will have years of reading to catch up with. :shrug:

[Fiona]

Some issues, there are many others I think.

 

(1) Statistically what are the chances of the components in the primordial soup combining to create the first cell?

(2) Is it possible that random mutations most often observed to have deleterious affects on organisms have really been responsible for building strength, adaptation and resilience in to populations?

(3) How can complex systems within the body have developed their component parts over time when in reality they only really make sense and only confer advantage when used simultaneously?

(4) Would adaptations like eyes, flight etc. really be sufficiently advantageous to an animal unless in their finished form?

(5) Some animals seem to have developed characteristics that are biologically costly rather than advantageous to them. For e.g. - Why did some dinosaurs get so big?

(6) If animals went through an evolutionary process why have we not found innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record?

 

 

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work and annoys the pig."

[Dov Henis]

Some issues, there are many others I think.

 

Respectfully,

 

The relevant Merriam-Webster definition of theory = a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. Principle(s), not technical details.

 

BTW, most or all of the 'still problematic' technical details you list have been or may be still partially or already acceptably resolved...

 

I think,

 

Dov

[Tormod]

Some issues, there are many others I think.

 

Your list does not show cracks in the theory. They are typical questions (usually asked by people unfamiliar with biology or who have an ID approach), and all have been responded to by biologists in various ways (and most questions, if not all, have been answered many times here at Hypography). That one can ask questions is *not* a sign of cracks in a theory.

 

The biggest cracks in evolution are the pots. :)

[Fiona]

:) Having studied it at degree level I am certainly not unfamiliar with Biology, but then that was about 16 years ago. Things may have evolved since then, obvioulsy not me, I am an evolutionary throwback :hihi:

 

 

"Never teach a pig to sing. It doesn't work and annoys the pig."

[HydrogenBond]

Everything in the cosmos is fractal, rehappens on many scales, and is continuously evolving. Each and every system in the universe continuously evolves within the total universal evolution and all the systems' evolutions are intertwined.

 

If this statement is true, that it would follow that life is another fractal layer. This would suggests a logical progression of life with some degree of variability. Evolutionary theory begins life as a variability from the logical progression of chemisty instead of treat life as a root logical progression with variability. In other words, evolution treats life as a chance occurance rooted in chemisty instead of it own fractal layers that progresses logically, is connected to the rest of the universe, which has its own layer of variability.

 

The reason this is so is evolution is rooted on the incorrect variable. It is based on DNA instead of the hydrogen proton which defines the structure and activity of the DNA, as well as the rest of the cell. If seems logical that a universe dominated by hydrogen would fractal along hydrogen leading to life.

 

If one looks at the formation of DNA, one can look at the DNA forming in sort of a vacuum with the DNA evolving using nothing but randomness leading to selective changes. Or one can look at DNA forming in water full of stuff, the activity of which is based on hydrogen bonding, with the aqueous hydrogen bonding putting a external tug on the hydrogen bonding of the DNA, that leads the DNA toward a state that optimizes the needs of the hydrogen protons.

[Tormod]

Fiona, if you had studied biology (above high school) the following question would not make sense to you:

(5) Some animals seem to have developed characteristics that are biologically costly rather than advantageous to them. For e.g. - Why did some dinosaurs get so big?

Evolution is not a process to make living beings more efficient. It is a process in which the species that are able to adapt best, have the most offspring. It has nothing to do with size.

 

Dinosaurs died out not because they were big and inefficient (some of them were by the way highly efficient creatures), but because they did not survive the calamities that befell them.

 

If evolution was a controlled drive towards efficiency, nothing would need to be larger than a cell.

[hallenrm]

Let us look it this way, if we accept that changes are imminent in whatsoever, then the environmental condition in which organisms live changes too. Organisms themselves change, for the better or worse, because of their inherent structure, call it genome or genetic traits. Couple it with the doctrine (also known as the Theory of evolution) that nature is impartial it does not tend to favor any particular species, only those who succeed to survive exist for the moment, and think about it coolly for a few minutes, I think the cobwebs on the mind can clear up a bit.

 

There are cobwebs in the Theory of evolution too, but only serious consistent thought can perhaps clear them, for example, you may start by reading the thread Darwin revisited!

 

:)

[Dov Henis]

 

- evolution treats life as a chance occurance rooted in chemisty

- evolution is based on DNA

- hydrogen proton defines structure and activity of DNA ... cell...

 

- In my opinion life ( also black holes ) is one of the forms of temporary energy containments in the cosmic space of ever diluting original singular energy, and life's initial "chemicals" just happened to be in a configuration/constellation able to support and sustain this proliferable containment via a cascade of favorable energy-effected steps.

 

- Life's genesis and evolution, of configurations supporting and sustaining temporary storage of energy, has most probably occurred with pre-DNA configurations, most probably with RNAs, and happened to "seed" itself in a chance simultaneous enabling occurrence of both ambient energetic conditions and presence - together with the initial self-proliferable NA oligomer or polymer - of all the essential pre-polymer moieties.

 

- hydrogen proton defines structure and activity in life as much as nuts or bolts in a car define the structure and activity of cars.

 

I think, respectfully,

 

Dov

[Michaelangelica]

What are the scientific ‘cracks’ in the theory of Evolution?

)

Two speed evolution

Crocodiles and stromatolites don't evolve where even Darwin"s finches have recently evolved new traits.

 

The ability of Bacteria to swap genetic material at will.

 

Evolution as a Theory is hard to fault.

The processes whereby it occurs needs more study and research.

 

I can't understand why fundamental Christians can't accept that God/gods may have invented Evolution rather than the seven day caper.

[Tormod]

Crocodiles and stromatolites don't evolve where even Darwin"s finches have recently evolved new traits.

 

But this only shows that evolution is at work...Crocs have had no external pressure to evolve and thus they don't. They are also rather esoteric creatures which only live in particular habitats.

 

Finches are found all over the place (how many varieties of finch are there, now?), and are much more responsive to their environment (as Darwin showed - differences from island to island) and therefore evolve more often and quicker by necessity.

[Michaelangelica]

But this only shows that evolution is at work...Crocs have had no external pressure to evolve and thus they don't. They are also rather esoteric creatures which only live in particular habitats.

.

You could be right

I don't agree however (I don't know why!)

 

How can you know that "Crocs have had no external pressure to evolve"?

 

Stromatolites have not evolved for 3.5 MILLION years. Why not?

No environmental pressure?

Who knows what has happened over 3.5M years.

 

The two speed evolution is something that Natural Selection needs to explain.

[Boerseun]

(1) Statistically what are the chances of the components in the primordial soup combining to create the first cell?

Very small, if you do it in a petrie dish in the laboratory. But the size and scale of the original evolutionary 'petrie dish' was massive, an ocean spanning the whole planet with energy supplied in the form of lightning, organic material falling from the sky and spewing from volcanos. This whole mix was stirred for literally billions of years. The chances of something interesting coming out of this broth sounds kinda good to me.

(2) Is it possible that random mutations most often observed to have deleterious affects on organisms have really been responsible for building strength, adaptation and resilience in to populations?

Certainly. But keep in mind, out of a given sample of a million mutations, only one or two will be beneficial. They will give that one individual the edge in procreation, the other 999,999 mutations will most likely be bad and will lower the chances of the individual procreating. The numbers certainly do add up.

(3) How can complex systems within the body have developed their component parts over time when in reality they only really make sense and only confer advantage when used simultaneously?

They have evolved in lockstep with each other from simpler forms, and each system's mutation into a more complex system is beneficial to the other system, and seeing as they are wholly dependent on each other, they will change into completely different systems, but in such a way that the one cannot exist without the other, for instance the brain and the stomach.

(4) Would adaptations like eyes, flight etc. really be sufficiently advantageous to an animal unless in their finished form?

Most certainly. Eyes seem to have adapted from a much simpler organ whose only function was to detect light and the direction it came from. The pineal gland shows much the same design, and serves in regulating our circadean rythms. Archaeopteryx is a winged dinosaur, the first true bird. But archaeopteryx was a terrible flyer - he had no keelbone to anchor big wing muscles. So it seems as if he was exclusively a glider, and wings for vertical take-off evolved out of a form designed initially to glide down from trees to the ground or from tree to tree. These systems have all evolved out of 'simpler', less efficient forms.

(5) Some animals seem to have developed characteristics that are biologically costly rather than advantageous to them. For e.g. - Why did some dinosaurs get so big?

Dinos became big because of their diet. They chowed plant material, and twigs and leaves are so low in nutrients that you have to eat an enormous amount of it to make it worth your while. And the bigger the herbivores became, they, of course, became irresistable to the carnivores. But a tiny carnivore can't bring down a diplodocus, so they grew as well - T-Rex being a case in point.

(6) If animals went through an evolutionary process why have we not found innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record?

This is a classic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. All animals are evolving, in the process of morphing from one species to another. In that sense, we can't look for transitional specimens, because each and every species you see around you (and in the fossil record) are transitional species between two species, as it is. Same with humans. You are a specimen of a transitional species, in between changing from Australopithecus to something yet to be imagined. I hope this answered a few of your questions.

[Tormod]

How can you know that "Crocs have had no external pressure to evolve"?

 

I don't know that, it was an assumption. Should have made that clear.

 

The two speed evolution is something that Natural Selection needs to explain.

 

I don't get the question...really...every species will have their own environmental and genetic pressures. No two species can be expected to evolve at the same tempo. "Natural selection" is basically just a term to specify that there is no *intelligent* selection, and furthermore it implies an uncontrolled (blind) evolution which can be both beneficial and adversarial. Thus species can die outbecause evolution takes them on a wrong track (or they fail to evolve). One species' death will open a niche for others to fight for.

[pgrmdave]

I'm sure that the theory of evolution has it's cracks, just like every other theory of anything. The cracks are anywhere that we can't test - the very low occurance of fossilization and thus the potential for an extreme to seem the norm and the origins of life come to mind rapidly. You'll find that because the theory of evolution has been underseige from many religious organizations, scientists are wary to admit that it, like all theories, is constantly under test, because that can make it appear to be weak (although it's really a strength, both of the scientific meathod and the theory itself). The theory of evolution appears, so far as the evidence can tell, to be true and accurate.