- NEW!
by Twhupfold on January 10th, 2007
The big thing which could disprove evolution is this thing called "Irreducible Complexity", its the idea that something is so complex that it couldn't possibly have 'evolved', it must have been created... So far, people have said a lot of different things are too complex to have evolved (For example, the system by which blood clots, or the bacterial flagellum, or the eye), unfortunately, every single one of them has been proven to have evolved, because they 'aren't' irreducibly complex, they are just 'very' complex :P
^ For example, the Bacterial Flagellum (System of movement), evolved from an excretory system also present in bacteria/viruses...
by BiBLEGoG on July 16th, 2008
The second law of thermodynamics. The fact that mutations do not change things into different species, after a mutation the organism will return to its original form after a couple generations (the fruit fly experiment). And if we came from apes shouldn't there be "ape men" around instead of the original apes that we evolved from?
by nm_cowgirl on October 13th, 2007
Well, we are dicovering more and more things that are making evolution less and less probable. For example, there are a lot of things in nature that are practically perfect: the the "golden angle." Many plants tend to grow in spirals at an angle of about 137.5 degrees. This angle allows for maximum foliage with little wasted space. This angle is so perfect that it doesn't need improvement. Yet, we see from fossil record that even some of the earliest plants display this pattern. Why don't early plants display growth patterns in simple fractions, gradually becoming more and more complex as time went on? That is what evolution is all about, after all.
Probably the strongest evidence against evolution are the gaps in the fossil record. Various forms of life simply 'appear,' fully developed and often with little or no relation to preceding species. We've discovered thousands and thousands of fossils; wouldn't it be logical to assume that we'd have found at least ONE form of life that was in a transition period? For a long time, scientists claimed that Archaeopteryx was a 'missing link,' but recently it's been found to have flight feathers, avian lungs, and areas in the skeletal structure where air sacs would have been. It's not a feathered reptile, it's a true bird. No transitory life forms have EVER been discovered. Supposedly, synapsids are the missing link between reptiles and mammals, but thousands of species of synapsids are alive today, so why haven't they evolved? Even Darwin admitted that evolution has major holes, and those holes haven't been fixed yet.
by -O-uknow on October 13th, 2007
The fossil remains of Homo Sapien Sapien found alongside Homo Erectus both dating back to the same era.
by Dr Jones on December 13th, 2008
Finding human and dinosaur fossils in the same rocks would cause a lot of problems for the Theory of Evolution.
by TheMan--- on October 13th, 2007
Me; see i was handed to Earth from God himself.
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on October 13th, 2007
Anything seriously out of order in the fossil record. Any bones before the Cambrian. Any large mammals in the time of the Dinosaurs. Any species that did not have "something rather like it" in preceding strata.
by Friartuck on September 28th, 2007
Put simply, the best evidence to falsify evolution would be a dog, quite naturally and after having mated with another dog, giving birth to a cat.
by omnicurious on December 14th, 2006
Let me say up front that I'm a firm believer in evolution. The only contradictory evidence I can think of at the moment would be to discover an organism (plant or animal) that had absolutely nothing biological (genetic or otherwise) in common with any other organism on this planet.
by ryderjeanes on December 14th, 2008
The rapture.
by Chubbychaser84 on December 13th, 2008
The fact that humans evolved from primates but there is no evidence of an intermediate between the ape and the human. If apes became more and more human like then why have we not found this in fossils? To become from ape to human would take a series of genetic mutations -(not one but many) and this would take a long time to occur to fully turn into a new species in which time fossils of the intermediate could be found.
by rwerelic on July 11th, 2008
By this point with all the evidence for evolution stacking up i don't think it could every be fully disputed.
Heres an example of a prediction made by evolution that if proof did not exist would turn the theory on it head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
The relevant info starts at the 25sec mark
by dragonworm on August 13th, 2009
Life seems to violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics if Earth, Moon, Sun, are considered a closed system.
This suggests that something is wrong.
If no means can be found to show that the therory of evolution is open to falsibility then it is not a scientific theory. It would be nothing more than a belief - no matter how much evidence is found to support the theory. This is a basic requirment of any theory that's accepted as scientific - it MUST be open to be shown to be false.
by gino on August 13th, 2009
Prove the eye evolved from that muddy pond water.
even darwin said it wouldn't/couldn't happen by the ETheory.
why give -points yet? some of you nits are arrogant, hostile...
by gino on August 12th, 2009
you people believing ET [evo-lootion guess] are backwards and ignorant. Creation disproves the reason for it. if the record of the HISTORY BOOK [Bible], is proven true, that puts ET in the shiter. It's been proven so many time to be error free/no mistakes, mass of MSS [manuscripts], archaeology [science], mathamentics [science], textual scholarship, etc. [see Facebook, ww5776@gmail.com, under info], for more..but, knowing you clowns, you won't even look, cause that means ET is stupid/false/against logic. darwin said the itch evolved so insects wouldn't bit you, plus alot other ignorant stuff. If darwin had read Mendel's book, he would never have witten his book. Mendel blew darwin out of the water. .check it out and be sure before you ignorant idiots shoot your mouth off.
by Ruby Doomsday on December 14th, 2008
On a small scale, nothing. The animals of 20 years ago are not the animals today. They are the same species and in most cases haven't evolved MUCH, but minor mutations coming to the forefront can certainly be observed in small quick-reproducing animals and plants.
On a larger scale, as in the evolution of a species... I don't know... maybe some almighty being coming to earth in a visible manifestation and appearing on Larry King Live on April Fools Day saying "Man, humanity. you guys are sure gullible. You really BELIEVED all that 'evolution' stuff?"
by genesyz on December 13th, 2008
Evolution is a fact. The scientific theory that explains evolution is natural selection. If you think that special creation is a viable alternative, then one example of evidence that could refute natural selection would be a creator openly, directly, and unambiguously asserting intellectual property rights.
by Parsec13 on February 1st, 2008
In this day and time people tend to believe what they want to believe no matter what the supporting evidence, or lack of evidence. In the good old days you believed what was available! Not much sometimes. People seem to believe who they like or are most influenced by. Chuck Manson for example. Richard Nixon. George of the White House.
The aliens who inseminated something here or brought us here to begin with, return to see how we are doing...or to offer condolences and apologies.
by bruceytom on February 1st, 2008
I've been away for quite a while, but have had time to think further on this question. We have discussed faith and knowledge. It seems that Magenta and i are quite close our definitions. Magenta accepts things as fact that he has not experienced because he has faith in others' reporting of these things. The far side of the moon is a good example. I also accept this as fact, but we both have a degree of faith in accepting it. It's reasonable and we trust others who claim to have been there. The evidence is great enough that faith and knowledge in this case are nearly identical. This leads me to another question: We know that faith can change. We can learn that some belief, no matter how cherished, might be wrong and so our belief (faith) changes. Can knowledge change? If you know something can you acquire knowledge that will contradict your previous knowledge?
The answer to this question has real bearing on the main question of this thread.
by bruceytom on October 23rd, 2007
[This rightly belongs in a comment thread, responding to Magenta and Henpc999. My computer failed me and so here it is. Please see that thread to make sense of this and accept my apology.]
No, i am not sorry at all. You've answered my question well. (I'm not trying a game of one-upmanship or trying to be clever, but to arrive at the truth. I respect your intellect and sincerity.)
We are saying the same thing at different levels. I have never said that we can only know what we have experienced-quite the opposite. Magenta said: Instead, we operate under assumed definitions... Henpc said: the key is in trusting the scientific method - e.g. other scientists have experienced it/whatever and then subsequently been verified by themselves AND indepedently...
Operative words in these comments are "assumed" and "trust". A respected lawyer of the first century defined faith as "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld". I hold to that definition and reject the notion of 'blind faith', a contradiction in terms. Blind belief, yes; credulity and gullibility, yes, but true faith is not the same thing.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Whenever we accept as true what we haven't experienced we show a degree of faith. The moon example holds. Unless you have been there, you need faith that the reports and measurements of others are true. The line between well-founded faith and absolute knowledge is razor thin. I have faith that those astronauts actually circled the moon and that their pictures represent reality. I accept it as fact. When you're perfectly honest, you will admit the same thing, unless you were there. Those scientific findings came to you by revelation and you accept them because you trust the men who present it.
Overwhelming evidence brings faith or belief to a point indistinguishable from knowledge. Now, if you've even once changed your view because increased evidence proved your former view to be wrong, what you believed before wasn't knowledge. Knowledge is the same as truth. If science were only a matter of knowledge, old ideas couldn't be discarded.
Faith is not bad, even for non-religious people. We put faith in one another all the time. We plan our lives weeks and months in advance because we 'know' that the earth will continue to spin on its axis (which it doesn't have) and that the sun will rise and set (which it never really does). Every time we plan a future event, it's based on faith. We accept that life will continue because it always has. Yes, logic tells us that the earth will continue to spin. No scientist has yet devised a way to record the future.
My point is this: Our knowledge of the past is only as good as the honesty and accuracy of those who recorded it. Our knowledge of the future is only as good as our ability to extrapolate details based on our current knowledge. Our knowledge of things unseen is no better than the reports of those imperfect men who tell us it's so. Most of the time they're pretty close to the mark. Sometimes not.
So, until your sources are perfect and infallible, at least some of your beliefs will be just that, beliefs subject to change. When you put the scientific method above all else, it becomes your religion.
by H on October 13th, 2007
As a staunch evolutionist, whose belief in evolution is formed from a logical, analytical point of view rather than empricial knowledge of the world... I would say.... Nothing.
The key concepts behind evolution are definitely true, and I believe I can demonstrate a logically sound proof for that in about 10 points, with 3 safe premesis.
There are, of course, problems with a few things about evolution, e.g. a few points have come about every now and then, and of course there is the problem with biogenesis, but the problems with evolution are essentially non-affecting to the main theory, they just require more investigation. Just because, say, physics cant describe something quite precisely yet doesn't mean ANYTHING and EVERYTHING related to that thing goes out the window
by bruceytom on July 10th, 2007
Twhupfold and i have found some common ground, i believe. He wisely acknowledged that belief in evolution doesn't rule out belief in a creator. I agree, too, that evolution is about change. (Of course. That's the definition of the word.)Where we disagree (i think) is on the matter of life forms changing into completely different forms, such as plants becoming animals. Maybe we only differ on the question of macro- and micro-evolution.
Do you have a problem with the POSSIBILITY that there was a first man who was fully man and had no sub-human ancestor?
by bruceytom on October 13th, 2007
Magenta, is the moon approximately spherical? Is the far side of it roughly the same shape as the near side?
by genesyz on October 22nd, 2009
The theory is the proposed explanation for the observed phenomenon. Evolution is the phenomenon, not the theory. The proposed explanation for evolution is called Natural Selection. We (humans) can (and do) manipulate the phenotypes of species by intervening and selecting for various traits, and promoting or inhibiting the reproduction of species that carry these traits. The Theory of Natural Selection proposes that similar processes occur naturally based on selective pressures species have due to their environments. There is a great deal of evidence supporting this explanation. Like the Theory of Universal Gravitation, Natural Selection is a simple idea that explains complex phenomena, but it can always be said that there is some supernatural being doing the work instead. Since both make testable predictions and are supported by abundant evidence, they are much more preferable to postulating extravagances such as a Prime Mover or Divine Creator.
by Anonymous on August 19th, 2009
God himself coming down from heaven and taking a giant poop on Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker or Darwin's grave.
That'd do it for me I guess.
by technios on July 11th, 2008
the concept of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" would make sense... if only he had evidence of "supernatural selection" when an anomaly set of twins is exiled and survives!
Is Bush the missing final evolutionary answer?
by WABOO on December 8th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If man has evolved from the monkey, why are there so many different species of monkeys, yet, only one of man; is there a difference?
by TrueSeeker on December 15th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is evolution a fact or theory?
by Speedstream75 on November 24th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Why is humanity the only species that "evolves"?
by bladecloudstar777 on December 11th, 2011
| 2 people like this
What is the degree of influence Hellenism [Greek thought]had on the Evolution Theory and on Christendom? Both have succeeded to confuse most
by TrueSeeker on November 30th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading What possible evidence could falsify the biological theory of evolution?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Basically, if someone can find something which is so unique and complex, that it has no predecessors, it could possibly disprove "Our understanding" of evolution... There is simply no denying the fact that creatures suited to their environment are more likely to survive and pass this suitability on, than those who aren't...
by Twhupfold on January 10th, 2007
... You idiots who rate people down without leaving a comment honestly need to sort yourselves out :/
by Twhupfold on February 3rd, 2007
Awesome answer. +6
by AntigoneRising on July 10th, 2007
Yeah, great answer Twuphold.
Personally, I think the concept of Irreducible Complexity is pretty arrogant in that it seems to be based around the assumption that just because we can't understand something fully, that it must be something completely outside of any possible logic.
by Mr. Meaulnes on July 10th, 2007
Exactly Byron - but what's even worse than that is that those who actually 'read' about the subject 'do' understand it at least enough to know that there is currently no known example of irreducible complexity : D
by Twhupfold on July 15th, 2007
Scientists seem to really like abstract theories, and in some cases they can be viable, but it seems the line between remote theoretical possibility and "Proof" gets dangerously thin sometimes.
by Mr. Meaulnes on July 15th, 2007
Well, a great deal of Science does deal more with disproving things than proving things... So hypotheses are often suggested to work given what we know 'cant' happen - leading to some fairly abstract ideas : D (Take for example, the whole thing about 'dark energy' in space; we can see the Universe expanding faster and faster, but by everything we know about physics, this simply cannot happen on it's own - there MUST be a HUUUUUGE amount of energy being put into the expansion, but we can't see any of it: thus dark energy was proposed to fill the gap, and now as we examine the phenomenon further it actually looks like 'dark energy' was an -extremely- accurate hypothesis, despite being really absurd, hehe)
by Twhupfold on July 15th, 2007
Science does get very outlandish at times.
It's a shame that most of those abstract theories have just as much of a chance of turning out total BS as they do of being correct and changing the world.
by Mr. Meaulnes on July 16th, 2007
Scientists do not 'really like abstract theories'...
We take what we know about the world and try to reduce it to a set of equations which describes it... You make it sound like we take LSD, write down the first thing that comes into our head, and use it.
We produce many theories to cover a single, or a few, possible things (e.g. numerous explanations for the expansion rate of the universe increasing) because alot of them WILL be wrong, and it's only good science to propose as many different possibilities to the same solution.
by H on October 13th, 2007
I agree with your point, the bit I have a problem with is when people latch onto particular theories out of those many different ones and put up an inordinate amount of fight for them even once they've been effectively proved wrong.
by Mr. Meaulnes on October 13th, 2007
If someone spent years and years working on something, then of course they are liable to be biased/blinded somewhat.
Though, that said, it depends on your degree of true proof. Even einstein refused a large portion of quantum mechanics for years.
by H on October 13th, 2007
RFlagg - I'm not sure anyone disagrees that attaching oneself to a theory even while it has been definitively disproven is wrong, the problem is that it often has to be proven that the theory has been disproven ; )
That is to say, the evidence that disproves it may exist, have been found, have been studied, tested, etc repeatedly - thus disproving the original theory - but it isn't always in the open for everyone to see, those who attach themselves need to see the evidence clearly and then decide whether to remain attached (thus deeming themselves unscientific) or detach and move on, since the evidence shows them to be incorrect.
by Twhupfold on October 13th, 2007
henpc999: Einstein was wrong. They knew it then, and they know it now.
by leetmeat on December 14th, 2007
With respect to what?
I know fully well what einstein did correctly and incorrectly, I'm almost finished with an MPhys...
by H on December 14th, 2007
With respect to Quantum mechanics, I think leetmeat was saying.
henpc999: "Even Einstein refused a large portion of quantum mechanics for years."
leetmeat: "Einstein was wrong. They knew it then, and they know it now."
by Twhupfold on December 15th, 2007
I don't understand the point he's making
His statement is essentially an agreement with what I said previously, is it not?
by H on December 15th, 2007
Hmm... I think his point was something like this (please correct me if I'm wrong leetmeat):
Einstein was actually biased towards his own views rather than being objectively scientific and examining the evidence of his time that supported Quantum Mechanics.
*shrugs* At least, that's what I understood that he was saying, maybe I'm wrong though...
by Twhupfold on December 15th, 2007
Ah, yes.
So, that goes with what i said really :P
by H on December 15th, 2007
Yep : D
by Twhupfold on December 15th, 2007
Since Irreducible Complexity is not falsifiable - it's just statements that people make it can't be taken as something that falsifies evolution.
The entire Intelligent Design movement has gone around scientific methods like publishing in peer reviewed journals, developing hypotheses, making predictions and all that. ID has been taken directly to the public and has gained traction only among non-scientists who don't understand how science works.
by 23Skidoo on July 14th, 2008
Agreed, 23Skidoo. ID is not the result of the scientific method, and is untestable. Thus, it cannot possibly be science or taught in a science classroom.
by AntigoneRising on July 15th, 2008