What are the arguments against the Theory of Evolution?
There aren’t many arguments against the theory of evolution, and there would be even less if people wouldn’t think so small and confined. People think that everything evolved in one place. But that most likely wasn’t so. Since life is thought to have started in the ocean, then that is where the first cell was created. Now that cell divides into two cells, those into four, and so on. Now the ocean has currents that run through it, either by rivers, or through the coriolis effect. Many cells are floating in the ocean by now, and some of them get caught in different currents, bringing them to different parts of the world. At this time, these cells have to evolve, do to the fact that they are in new areas, with new temperatures, new air pressure, maybe new water pressure. The cells evolve, each with different traits do to the new area they live in. Eventually they evolve into the creatures we know from the past and the creatures we know of the present. Factoid #2- One very simple form of e
There are no real arguments against evolution in the field of science. All the arguments I have seen are based on misunderstandings of or deliberate misstatements of what is known by science, rely on the listener’s ignorance of the real details of science, and are generally restatements of the same arguments as have been used since the time of William Paley (1743-1805; biography here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/paley.html). The site www.talkorigins.org reviews all the common arguments, such as a supposed lack of transitional fossils or the supposed improbability of certain chains of events, or the fallacious claim that mutations never “add information” to the genome, as well as why these arguments don’t work. The processes and products of evolution can also be nonintuitive and difficult to grasp, as opposed to the appealing simplicity of “God did it.” The problem with that is that using ease of comprehension as a measure of truth does not always work. As an analogy, think wha
I know of no argument against “microevolution,” so I assume you refer to global- or macro-evolution. While some will not agree with these statements, they are arguments against evolution. One simple argument says that every observable complex system becomes less orderly with time and the random input of energy. While some very simple geometries can self-organize (e.g. crystals, snowflakes), I am unaware of any documented complex system which spontaneously organized itself and improves with time and chance. This analysis suggests that evolution would militate against all of human experience. Michael Behe argues in “Darwin’s Black Box” that there is no reasonable way to evolve highly complex systems that have irreducible complexity. Some of the mechanisms of life are so complex and interdependent that they could not have happened incrementally as none of the individual pieces could benefit the organism – complete working chemical mechanisms would have to “happen,” including their regulat
