What are the evidences against evolution?

Answer 1

Contributors, please keep the question in mind. If you have any kind of material that answers the question, go for it. There are already several lively discussion entries; maybe what you would like to say should go there. Remember too that whatever your opinions of religion, the question is in the Religion & Spirituality category. Religious opinions are welcome, and consideration for others is never out of fashion.

_________________________

ANSWERTo answer the question directly, there is little good evidence that the theory of evolution is wrong. The concept is sound and there is a lot of good scientific evidence supporting it. We still have challenges such as predicting time ranges for how long something took to evolve or when it first showed up, and the actual evolutionary path a species took (what animal is related to what). But the concept itself is still good.

Much, if not most, of the structure of contemporary evolutionary theory, particularly as it is expressed in modern evolutionary synthesis (MES) is difficult in the extreme to refute. Biologists are on board with the theory, and now researchers in genetics are joining the supporters of modern evolutionary systhesis. But there's a problem with evolution. A most serious one.

The smoking gun points at the origin of life. Did it evolve from "non-life" here on earth (abiogenisis), or did another "type" of life begin the process here by arriving from somewhere else (biogenesis)? Even in its most simple form, a living thing presents a long and complex biochemical molecule. Nothing with the size and complexity of this basic chemical block of life can be manufactured in the laboratory. And how, if we cannot make something like, say, RNA, in the controlled environment of a lab, could such a large, complex chemical engine arise "naturally" on the planet - or anywhere else? Evolutionists cannot answer this question.

The one condition we cannot "artificially create" in the laboratory is the great length of time over which the earth changed geologically before life appeared. Who knows what could have happened throughout a time span we can barely imagine. We cannot set up experiments and "simulate" a billion years of passing time on our project to see what kind of outcome we will get. Even though we can do just about everything else in an experimental setting, letting an experiment run for the length of time the evolution "experiment" has been running is out of the question.

How could life have been created here? How could life have been created elsewhere to get itself trucked here to spread and evolve? There are a number of theories regarding the beginning of life on earth. But none of them comes even close to explaining the generation of the "magic" complex molecule that is a biochemical machine which is alive, which can grow and reproduce itself. Can a lightning bolt be made to animate a puddle of mud? We don't know how life began, but we do know it has been extant on earth for billions of years. Throughout this time, the earth has changed, and life changed with it. If it did not change, did not evolve and adapt, it became extinct.

This is no credible argument against evolution. It is the best that science has to offer, and it best fits all the evidence around us. This includes the billion year time frames given by evolution scientists and cosmologists alike. There is a mountain of scientific evidence supporting evolution, and let's be clear that the evidence wasn't "manufactured" to support the theory. No, the theory is derived from that huge pile of evidence; it comes after all the facts are spread out and examined. There is little of substance that can be proposed to challenge what we know as modern evolutionary synthesis.

There is evidence against evolution. While there are many facts that support it, there are also many facts that contradict it. For example, many of the chemicals in a cell would destroy each other if they were not already in the form of a cell. How could these chemicals then form a cell? And while Evolution is accepted by many people, so is its top competitor, Creationism, and there is no more evidence against it that there is against Evolutionism.

Answer 2

There is no such thing as "evolutionism". The correct term is "evolution"; and evolution is not a religion.If you mean "evolution", yes, there is lots of evidence for it. It is currently a well-researched and generally accepted model.

Answer 3

Evolution is a marvelous thing, and most of it beyond the scope of humans. Things that are so miraculous seem to be of divine origin..