What are the scientific arguments against evolution ?
There are none. That's not to say that the theory of evolution started out perfect, or that there are no unanswered questions. It's just the nature of science. As we collect more evidence, our explanation of that evidence (which is really what a theory is) changes to fit it. If we find evidence that disagrees with what we know about evolution, the theory changes to account for that evidence, becoming more accurate in the process. We've found plenty of evidence over the past century and a half that has led us to adjust the theory. It's a common theme in evolutionary biology - most discoveries can be summed up as "evolution is more complicated than we thought". We have not made any discoveries that clash with the theory so much that the two can't be reconciled. Of course, that doesn't stop creationists from claiming otherwise. It takes a special kind of failure in logic to leap from "evolution is complicated" to "evolution isn't real". Throw in a good sized dose of cognitive dissonance and a fair amount of willful ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation, and you have pretty much every creationist argument. Here's a list of every single argument you're ever likely to hear against evolution: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Of course, each one has been debunked time and time again. Honesty has never been the creationists' strong suit, though. They're all rooted in some misunderstanding or outright lie, so I wouldn't call any of the arguments "scientific". The fight over evolution is not a scientific one - it's a cultural one. On one side, there's solid science, backed by a century and a half of research by thousands of scientists spanning almost every culture and religion. On the other side, there's a small group of very vocal and politically connected fundamentalists making arguments from emotion, using rhetorical tricks, and spreading misinformation in order to prop up a religion and a pathetically weak faith that can't withstand even the briefest exposure to anything that contradicts it (or, for that matter, anything that isn't constantly and actively reaffirming it). In other words, the arguments against evolution aren't scientific in the least.
What is the most absurd argument against evolution you've seen?
I’m particularly fond of the “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” argument.Basic science is over the head of practically every creationists and nothing attests to that more than the above question. What creationists fail to realize is that evolution did not happen in a linear progression, as is often depicted in their strawman caricatures illustrating their flawed understanding of the evolutionary progress. They willfully ignore the fact that not only does evolution have several converging lines of evidence corroborating its authenticity from many different fields but that the process of evolution has been intensely scrutinized and revised over the years.They would like for us to accept that human evolution proceeded like thisWhen in fact it proceeded more like thisAs you can see, the progress of evolution is much, much more complicated than what creationists have us believe. Understand that I’m not suggesting that the above picture is in any way exhaustive of the human evolutionary tree. I simply chose this picture to illustrate the different level of complexity between the creationist’s linear model vs. the more accurate branched model.Creationists commit many different fallacies when they speak on evolutionary theory. One of the most common that I’ve seen is the “moving the goalposts” fallacy. This is basically where the creationist demands evidence, you give them the evidence, they deny it and “move the goalposts” by demanding some other, usually greater evidence.Paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, anthropology—all of these fields and more have provided numerous lines of converging evidence to support evolutionary theory. Any one field could provide ample evidence to destroy any creationist’s claims regarding human evolution, yet no matter what’s presented to them, they refuse to accept the evidence. They’ve moved the goalposts back so far that unless biologists and paleontologists show a fish morphing into a human, which anyone with half a brain knows never happened, then they’re never going to be satisfied. In fact, I’d argue than they’d still be unconvinced if you gave them something as extraordinary as that!
What are arguments against evolution through adaptation?
If you by adaptation mean fluctuation of allele frequencies in a population with no mutations involved, then there cannot be any evolution as a result of it. At least, that is my view. I think adaptation is any change when there is no novelty, i.e. it is the fluctuation of allele frequencies that takes place if there is no mutations. Evolution is the progressive changes that take place in organisms due to mutations that accumulate and create novelties. I have discussed this in my blog, here and here, but also generally in my blog.Jarle Kotsbak
How can I build accurate arguments against theistic evolution?
If we’re talking about the same “theistic evolution”, then you can’t - not without doing exactly what even most atheists will admit is impossible: definitively proving the nonexistence of God.As I understand the term, “theistic evolution” basically means nothing more or less than, “Evolution works, exactly as science says it does - except that God planned it that way all along, and maybe He might give it imperceptible nudges along the way.”So, since it posits nothing that would deviate in any way from the scientific evidence, and since the creation of a self-sustaining evolutionary principle certainly wouldn’t be beyond the scope of an omnipotent God’s powers, if He exists… there really isn’t any argument against it.Because, you see, “theistic evolution” is not a theory in its own right - it’s an “error theory” (which is not a bad thing).In other words, a person comes up with a theory of how things work - then some evidence appears to contradict that theory. The person has three options:Reject the evidence in favor of retaining the theory. In the context of evolution, this would be Creationism.(1.5) Reject some of the evidence, and slightly modify the theory. This would be Intelligent Design.Accept the evidence and abandon the theory. This is atheism, or at least a very liberal version of monotheism.Accept the evidence and retain the theory, by rejecting the conflict between the theory and the evidence, explaining how the theory can still be true in harmony with the evidence. This is called an “error theory”, and that is what theistic evolution is meant to be.Unlike a proposed theory in itself, an error theory doesn’t require any evidence because it isn’t making any positive claim. It doesn’t say, “My theory is right” - it only says, “Here is why your evidence hasn’t proven my theory wrong.” Properly speaking, it is only a proposed reconciliation, not an independent theory.So, to disprove theistic evolution, you’d have to prove one of three things:There absolutely is no God,If there is a God, it would be impossible, or at least wildly implausible for Him to use evolution as a mechanism of creation, orEvolution doesn’t happen at all (which would technically disprove TE, but not in the way I suspect you’d like).
Why do scientists keep ignoring evidence that contradicts evolution?
There are 4 million species of animals on earth and less than 250,000 species of fossils. there are only 700 known species of dinosaurs they could of lived and died in noah's flood