MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > The problem with the theory of evolution

The problem with the theory of evolution

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
46 replies | jump to latest

It was formed before people knew about DNA.

DNA is basically an instruction manual for a being to grow, form, and function. If there is mutation, it is the absence of information, and mutations are always bad.

For a good mutation to take place (evolution), the entire DNA strand would have to rewrite itself into a new, perfectly ordered and working strand. For that 'evolved' animal to not be a one off, there would have to be multiple spontaneous evolutions at the same time, creating a bunch of animals to mate and continue the new species.

Let's face it, that just can't happen.

Gradual change may occur within a species, but to create a brand new species, that just cannot happen.

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

You seem to be a little confused on the science, making broad generalizations on DNA, I suggest you do some more reading on it from credible sources.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Variances occur within species for numerous reasons, within the spectrum of what is possible. It's debatable how these variances occur. But the creation of an entire species just cannot be explained looking at DNA.

[–] Redsfan001 (6218) 5 years ago

I do a lot of reading. I have never come across a top/respected scientist who stated that discovery of DNA puts the theory of evolution in doubt.

If you can give me a name of a scientist and publication supporting your OP it would be appreciated.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 5 years ago

If there is mutation, it is the absence of information, and mutations are always bad.

Wrong. Needs to pay attention in class.

[–] CKid (3842) 5 years ago

You got that right, Quasimodo.
Perhaps Intothenight did a little too much partying the night before and fell asleep during science class.

[–] SaneMax (240) 5 years ago

Perhaps Intothenight did a little too much partying the night before and fell asleep during science class.

Exactly.

[–] jriley555 (8544) 5 years ago

there are the following basic types of genetic replication errors :
insertion/duplication
deletion
substitution

they are sometimes harmless, sometimes harmful/lethal, sometimes beneficial

mutations are the raw material of evolution

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

How long does it take for a completely new species to form?
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=417

"Based on genetic evidence, some scientists think that humans began domesticating wolves 100,000 years ago. So, even with artificial selection from humans, after 100,000 years, the two species [dogs and wolves] aren't really that distinct. We're usually talking millions of years for mammals, but if things have short "generation times" (meaning it is not long from their birth until they can reproduce), then we expect things to happen a lot faster."

A new species doesn't appear suddenly. It's the aggregated change after hundreds of thousands of generations.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Wolf to dog is within the same species. Show me wolf to tiger.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Wolf to dog is within the same species

Exactly, and that after 100,000 years, even though there was artificial selection (which accelerates evolution), it wasn't enough to create a new species.

Show me wolf to tiger.

Felines and carnivores, they diverged between 60 million and 30 million years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feliformia#Evolution

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

See that's just speculation.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

Of course. Eventually, everything is just speculation. Perhaps tigers and dogs don't exist, and they're just part of a computer simulation. Perhaps the same applies to you. Stating that they exist, stating that you exist, it's just speculation.

What matters is how good is the speculation, and evolution is damn good.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Simulation theory is actually gaining traction.

[–] jriley555 (8544) 5 years ago

your ignorance is beyond appalling.

dogs and wolves are distinct species.

interestingly, gray wolves have dog DNA.

[–] jriley555 (8544) 5 years ago

DNA is actually the completely independent -confirmation- of evolution/phylogeny.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes, it is impressive how when DNA was discovered, it fit so beautifully with the work of scientists like Darwin and Mandel. It actually confirmed most of their ideas.

The OP's first point was nonsensical and it just got worse from there.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 5 years ago

> The OP's first point was nonsensical and it just got worse from there.

Agreed. I used to try straightening out people like this, but realized it's a waste of time. It's like arguing with someone who got hold of writings by scientists in the 1850s "proving" that heavier-than-air machines cannot fly, and having seen those, now claims that airplanes don't exist.

I suspect we'll hear the usual litany of flawed arguments soon -- comparing evolution to a 747 in a shoebox; claims that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics; et cetera.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

True. The OP is already believed in something else. Whatever evidence presented would be simply dismissed as nah I don't see it, I don't buy it, still not logical, etc.

People believe whatever they want to believe.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

it is true darwin & wallace didn't know about dna, of course.

in fact, the lack of mechanism was something that really troubled darwin. he knew that if traits just 'blended,' his theory couldn't hold.

which is why the discovery of dna supports evolution - it proves that mutations that provide advantages will hold over generations, not blend and become diluted.

your point about an evolved animal not being able to mate is really silly, frankly, and shows a complete misunderstanding of the topic.

there is a religion board for stuff like this. i think it would be much better if people took stuff like this there.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Gradual changes can never explain specie jumping.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

speciation is accumulation of changes to the point where the population is distinct enough to be a separate species.

there is no jumping. that is a fabrication on your part.

[–] jriley555 (8544) 5 years ago

small changes accumulate into large changes

microevolution implies macroevolution

the proof is in the fossil record, dna, pathogenic mutations effecting significant lethality

it happened. i have no idea what you mean about species jumping.

a guy named ernst mayr wrote a lot of the process of speciation. you might check him out.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/2018/09/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news

Interesting read. Still not logical.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

i agree this is an interesting read.
i don't understand why on earth you would post it.
it doesn't support anything you seem to believe:

Question: A 2009 headline in the British magazine New Scientist said “Darwin was wrong” and was immediately seized upon by creationists. Explain the issues and how the latest science is rewriting the idea of natural selection.

Answer: It’s not rewriting the idea of natural selection. Rather, it’s rewriting our understanding of evolution, of which natural selection is still a very important part. There are two phases in classic Darwinian evolution. First, there is the arising of variations from one creature to another or one individual population to another. That was thought to occur incrementally, in very slow stages, by mutations in the genome. Once there are variations among individuals, natural selection, the survival of the fittest, acts upon those variations.

What is new, and caused New Scientist to run that over-stated and provocative headline, “Darwin Was Wrong,” is that we now understand there is another, hugely significant form of variation. It’s not just incremental mutation, but horizontal gene transfer, bringing entirely new packages of DNA into genomes.

One of the axioms in Darwin’s day, natura non facit saltus, which your good Latin training [laughs] will tell you means nature does not make leaps; things happen incrementally. But horizontal gene transfer has revealed that nature does sometimes make leaps, whereby huge lumps of DNA can appear in an individual or population quite suddenly and then natural selection acts on them. That can be a very important mechanism in the evolution of new species

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's a departure from Darwin and that's intriguing. It can certainly explain how we as a specie change with the passage of time.

I don't believe gradual changes do anything other than produce variety with the species.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

it's a supplement to darwin. and it doesn't disprove evolution, and it doesn't state that natural selection isn't a very important part of evolution.

you've made it clear what you think. that's fine. you're allowed to be wrong. i just don't understand why you'd post a link to an article that doesn't support anything you seem to think.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It shows that theories change with time.

His theory is still quite new.

In 100 years I wonder what else will be modified, changed, reedited, etc.

Darwin said that swimming bears might one day evolve to be like whales.

[–] davodikum (6212) 5 years ago

Whale bears?

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

So you dont believe evolution is true.
Do you have any ideas of your own how the various species of life around now came to be?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

A creator. I see design and artistry.

[–] chilone (18316) 5 years ago

Anyone can see, it's intelligent design.

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

ok , all the people believing in I.D. over here , all the people believe evoution over here ...
all the people pretending to believe in I.d in order to get a rise out of the scientists over here , and all the people pertending to believe in evolution to avoid being ranted at over here ....

[–] chilone (18316) 5 years ago

Intelligent design and science aren't mutually exclusive.

[–] davodikum (6212) 5 years ago

True ID and evolution could be one in the same. If you could, you would design something to be adaptable.

[–] Moonglum9 (11340) 5 years ago

You guys are making everything too complicated. Evolution as summed up in the link below makes perfect sense and seems totally reasonable:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BL9S-TUikfg

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The whole crawling out of the ocean thing would never happen unless intervention occured.

[–] davodikum (6212) 5 years ago

Why? How so?